B 0 ROUGH .Of LAURELDA L E BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Adopted by Laureldale Borough Council on February 13,1995.

Prepared un'th the assistance of.. SYSTEMS DESIGN ENGINEERING, INC. 850 Park Road Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, 19610 1 I BOROUGH of LAURELDALE I I I TABLE of CONTENTS I PART I: INTRODUCTION I Chapter One Introduction I PART 11: BACKGROUND INFORMATION Chapter Two History I Chapter Three Regional Setting Chapter Four Environmental and Natural Features Chapter Five Population, Housing, and Growth 1 Chapter Six Economic Characteristics Chapter Seven Inventory of Community Facilities and Services I Chapter Eight Transportation Network Inventory I Chapter Nine Existing Land Use 1.. PART 111: THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chapter Ten Goals and Objectives Chapter Eleven Economic Development Plan I Chapter Twelve Community Facilities and Services Plan Chapter Thirteen Open Space and Recreation Plan I Chapter Fourteen Transportation Plan Chapter Fifteen Future Land Use Plan I Chapter Sixteen Implementation

I APPENDIX I I I I LIST of FIGURES

1.1 Base Map (map) ...... follows pg . I .5 I 2.1 Historic Development (map) ...... follows pg . 11 .4 2.2 Borough Population: U.S. Census 1950 .1990 ...... 11 .5 I 3.1 Regional Setting (map) ...... follows pg. III .2 4.1 Slopes (map) ...... follows pg . IV .1 I 4.2 Relief (map) ...... follows pg . N .1 4.3 Geology (map) ...... follows pg . N .2 I 4.3a Description of Geologic Units ...... N .3 4.4 Geology and Development Potential ...... N .4 4.5 Soil (map) ...... follows pg . N .6 I 5.1 Population of the Borough: 1940 .1990 ...... V .2 5.2 Static Analysis: 1970 .1980 (graph) ...... follows pg. V .5 I 5.3 Static Analysis: 1980 .1990 (graph) ...... follows pg. V .5 5.4 Population: 1990 & 2000 projections (graph) ...... follows pg. V .5 I 5.5 Population by Age Group: 1980, 1990, and 2000 (projections) ...... V .6 5.6 Housing Units / Persons per Household 1970, 1980, 1990 ...... V .7 I 5.7 New Residential Construction by Type of Unit: 1990, 1991, 1992 ...... V .8 5.8 Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing, 1990 ...... V .9 I 5.9 Housing Units by Type: 1990 ...... V .10 5.10 Income and Poverty: 1990 ...... V .11 I 5.11 Formal Education Level of Residents ...... V .12 6.1 Principal Employers Within the Borough ...... VI .3 6.2 Job Availability in Laureldale Area by Industry, 1994 ...... VI .4 I 6.3 Employment of Laureldale Residents, 1990 ...... VI .5

6.4 Change in County Employment by Industry: September 1992 .September 1993 ...... VI .7 6.5 Occupations of Employed Residents ...... VI .8 6.6 Household Income: 1989 (graph) ...... follows pg . VI .9 6.7 Labor Force and Unemployment: October 1993 ...... VI .10 6.8 Municipal Revenue: 1989 .1993 ...... follows pg . VI .14 6.9 Municipal Expenditures: 1989 .1993 ...... follows pg. VI .15 6.10 Expenditures Compared with Revenue: 1989 .1993 ...... follows pg. VI .15 6.11 Comparison of Industrial Classifications: Census Bureau and S.I.C...... VI .18 I' 7.1 Community Facilities & Services (map) ...... follows pg. W - 9 ~I 8.1 Road Classification & Condition (map) ...... follows pg. VI11 - 5 8.2 Public Transit (map) ...... follows pg. VI11 - 6 'I 9.1 Existing Land Use (map) ...... follows pg. IX - 2 9.2 .Acreage Occupied by Specific Land Uses ...... IX - 3 13.1 Public Recreational Facilities ...... XI11 - 7 I 15.1 Adjacent Zoning (map) ...... :...... follows pg. XV - 2 15.2 Future Land Use (map) ...... follows pg. XV - 6 I 16.1 Inter-Relationship of Plan Goals ...... XVI - 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I .. I I I I RESOLUTION No. 95-03 I

I RESOLUTION No. 95-03 I a A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN II for the ‘1 BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE, BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

I WHEREAS, the I3orough Council of the Borough of Laureldale, Berks County, Pennsylvania has created this Comprehensive Plan of 1995 pursuant to the provisions of Article 111 of Act 247, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, with the assistance of I Systems Design Engineering, Inc., and under the auspices of the Berks County I’lanning Commission; and I WHEREAS, the said Comprehensive Plan has been found to contain all elements required by Act 247 and to be a valid expression of Borough policy on a comprehensive range of I issues; and WHEREAS, the said Comprehensive Plan has been presented to the residents of the Borough at a dilly advertised public meeting, held by the planning sub-committee of the I Ibrough Council on February 13,1995 pursuant to §302(a) of Act 247; and WHEREAS, the said Comprehensive Plan was the subject of a duly advertised public hearing held by the Borough Council subsequent to the above-reference public meeting I on February 13,1995 pursuant to §302@) of Act 247; and

WHEREAS, no comments adverse to the policies of this Comprehensive Plan were submitted in I writing prior to said public meeting and public hearing by the Berks County Planning Commission, the Muhlenberg Area School District, the Township of Muhlenberg, any public official, or any member of the general public; nor were I any such comments made verbally at the public meeting or public hearing; and WHEREAS, this Comprehensive Plan was the subject of a motion by the Laureldale Borough Council at tlie conclusion of the above-referenced public hearing to adopt the 1 said plan as the Comprehensive Plan for the Borough of Laureldale; and 1 WHEREAS, such motion passed unanimously; 1T IS THElI13F(~I~EK13SOLVED THAT THIS Comprehensive Plan of 1995 created for the Borough of I,aureldale, Ucrks County, Pennsylvania with the assistance of Systems Design I Engineering, Inc., is hereby adopted as the Comprehensive Plan of the Borough of Laureldale, supersedeing any and all previous Comprehensive Plans created for the Borough, effective on the thirteenth day of February, 1995. I I RECEIVED I I 1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 9 5 -0 3

BOROUGH COUNCIL I BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I PART I:

INTRODUCTION Description and Organization of the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan is one of the basic planning documents authorized by Act 247 of 1968, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, enabling local governments to plan for and regulate development. The State has recognized that good regulations are based upon a solid understanding of local conditions, a well-defined set of municipal goals, and a clearly articulated municipal policy encompassing a comprehensive range of issues and conditions. Unlike the Zoning Ordinance or a Building Code, the Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance or code with the force of law, but it contains the basic data and goal statements which are needed to enact sound regulations.

The first part of this document is an inventory of local conditions. The inventory examines natural features and conditions, existing patterns of development, the local transportation system, the makeup of the local economy and how residents are employed, the role of the Borough in relation to the region, man-made and natural features which influence local conditions and activities, and the demographic characteristics of the residents, including age composition and how the population has changed over the years. This portion of the document also includes a brief history of the Borough. Combined, this information provides a statistical snapshot of Laureldale, showing conditions at this point in time. Like a snapshot, this part of the Plan will age quickly, becoming less useful over time. However, it is a necessary part of the plan document, providing a foundation for municipal goals and offering a yardstick against which the Borough can measure its progress as it pursues its goals.

The second part of the document is the actual plan, expressing what the Borough wants to become. -This section includes general goals for the municipality, specific objectives to be implemented in pursuit of those goals, statements of municipal policy concerning a broad range of topics, and maps and charts illustrating the anticipated impact of these policies upon land use patterns. The chapters within this portion of the Plan consider the issue of implementation briefly, and Chapter Sixteen discusses it in depth. This is crucial, for even the most precisely defined objectives are of little use if there is no mechanism by which they may be achieved. Chapter Sixteen describes the planning and management tools available to the Borough and indicates which ones are likely to be most effective to accomplish each plan objective.

I- 1 I Previous Planning in Laureldale I This Comprehensive Plan replaces a document adopted by the Borough of Laureldale in September 1974. That plan was somewhat briefer than this one, but, like this plan, it considered a comprehensive range of I issues and established policy for each. For its age, it represents a commendable effort. However, even the best of plans become outdated; after twenty years, it is necessary to take stock of the community once more. In 1974, the concept of community planning was less well-defined than it is now, and the implementation I section of the previous plan focused upon establishing what we now think of as the most basic elements of an ongoing community planning strategy. The 1974 Plan included concerns such as the vacant Rosedale I Knitting Mius complex and how to provide services to an increasing population. While these were certainly crucial issues in 1974, the fact that we are now dealing with the impact of Yuasa-Exide upon the community I and grappling with maintaining the current level of services to a &creasing population highhght how much things have changed. I There is a widespread misconception that "planning" in a community is strictly concerned with the development of vacant land. If this is the understanding, then built-out communities, like Laureldale, may I think that they don't need to plan. However, planning is not merely guiding development, but guiding change, antiapating what changes are likely, and developing a strategy for dealing with changes beyond the I control of the Borough. The 1974 Comprehensive Plan contained a excellent synopsis of the functions of a I Comprehensive Plan, which bears repeating here. "...the citizens of Laureldale can expect to obtain the following benefits from the adoption and use of a Comprehensive Plan:

I "Controlled Communitv Develoument: changes are brought about by hundreds of individual public and private decisions. Without a plan to guide the use of land, a man may build his house in an area which is only appropriate for industry, or a school may be located where there I is little chance of substantial residential development. The Plan is to indicate how much change is likely to take place within a given area and to show where various types of development I should take place. "Establishment of a Plan Based on Facts: a Plan permits an impartial analysis of the resources I and potentials of the community. "Proper Forecasting- of Needed Communitv Exuenditures: a Plan, in establishing a program of all future requirements, makes it possible to effectively attach priorities on the basis of actual I need. "Safenuardinn the Taxuavers: a Plan enables taxpayers to measure all proposed developments I against future community growth and needs. "Provide a Guide for the Private Investor: planning can do much to protect future values. Groups interested in protection include builders, developers, bankers, governmental agencies, I and institutional investors. I 1-2 I 1 "Attract Commercial and Industrial Activities: sound community planning is a prime location criterion to many industries and commercial establishments. They want to protect their I investments.

"Effective Protection of Propertv Values: a Plan is a framework within which property values I may be protected and sustained. "Create a Communitv in Which Citizens Want to Live, Work, and Plav.

I "Create- a Communitv Eli~ble- for Federal Aid: a Plan for future use of land is a requisite for many Federal aid programs."

I The Community Development Objectives of the 1974 plan were a series of policy statements arranged by land use type. By ow definition, they would more properly be described as "goals" rather than "objectives." I While these policies seem reasonable, by today's standards they are perhaps too vague to serve as a strong guide for the development of municipal regulation. Also, some of these appear to be more appropriate for I communities with less development than what is found in the Borough today. I 1974 Statement of Communitv Development Obiectives RESIDENTIAL: Provide safe and convenient access to shopping, employment, recreational, and cultural activities ... protect living areas from smoke, noise, air pollution, and other conditions which I create blighted conditions ... allow for a variety of housing types in terms of price, location, and structural type, in logical locations to meet the varying needs of all families ... establish adequate living space as may be appropriate for each dwelling type in terms of lot sizes and open space and as consistent with existing developments in the Borough ... maintain residential areas in order that they I are visually cohesive, functionally ordered, and aesthetically pleasing.

COMMERCLAL Relate commercial development to major thoroughfares; however, the compounding I of traffic congestion must be avoided by separating commercial traffic from through traffic by means of controlling ingress and egress points, and other measures in order to preserve the basic integrity of the major thoroughfares ... provide for adequate off-street parking and loading facilities in all I shopping developments ... separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic in commercial developments in order to promote safety and enhance attractiveness. I INDUSTRIAL Provide for industrial uses in areas which are relatively flat, and near highway and railroad facilities ... preserve potential industrial areas for future use ... control undesirable influences of industry to prevent hazards to the public health and safety by such means as performance I standards ... encourage a diversity of industrial types in order to promote an economic balance. PARK AND.RECREATION Preserve existing open and recreational areas through zoning and land use control provisions ... create open space areas in new project developments through design control.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES POLICIES: Assure proper public protection by the adoption of ordinances designed to protect the health and welfare of all residents, such as sanitary codes, housing codes, and building codes ... encourage the development of quasi-public facilities such as private schools, health-welfare institutions, churches, and similar facilities that contribute desirable services to the local and regional community.

1-3 I' CIRCULATION POLICIES Discourage through traffic in residential neighborhoods ... establish a functional hierarchy of street systems, each designed to serve a different traffic need as defined by I location, traffic volume, and circulation function ... maintain free flow of trafficways by prohibiting, where necessary, on-street parking and limiting access points from individual properties on collector streets and niajor traffic arteries ... design the circulation system so as to separate industrial and I commercial traffic from residential streets.

The 1974 Plan stated that the Borough had grown steadily since its incorporation in 1930. Indeed, the 1970 ~I census showed a 12% increase in population since the 1960 census. However, the data supplied also showed decreases in the 0-4and 25-44 age groups. Such declines in the number of very young children and adults of I child-bearing age should have suggested an imminent decline in the Borough population. Nevertheless, the policies of the Plan assume continuing growth. The 1990 census reported a Borough population of 3,726: a I decline of almost 18%from 1970. This miscalculation of population trends was perhaps the most serious flaw in the 1974 Plan. Although the Plan established valid goals, the declining population affected its ~I implementation, creating unanticipated situations. Whether or not the concerns of 1974 are still valid is one of the questions which this Plan will address. We will also look at issues which were unanticipated at that time, consider what may happen in the future, and describe the tools and strategies now available to the I Borough as it pursues its municipal goals.

I State Requirements for Municipal Comprehensive Plans Since 1974, Act 247, the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), has been amended three times. I These changes affect what must be included in order for a Comprehensive Plan to be legally valid. They also affect &e methods by which a municipality may achieve its goals. I The specific contents of a Comprehensive Plan will vary from community to community, depending upon I differing conditions and needs. However, the State, through the MPC, has established a set of elements which are deemed essential. These requirements are found in Section 301 of the MPC (emphasis added):

I 1. A statement of obiectives of the municipality concerning its future development, including, but not limited to, the location, character, and timing of future development....

2. A plan for land use, which may include provisions for the amount, intensity, character, and timing of land use proposed for residence, industry, business, agriculture, major traffic and transit facilities, utilities, community facilities, public grounds, parks and recreation, preservation of prime agricultural lands, flood plains, and other areas of special hazards and other similar uses.

3. A ulan to meet the housing needs of present residents and of those individuals and families anticiuated to reside in the municipality, which may include conservation of presently sound housing, rehabilitation of housing in declining neighborhoods, and the accommodation of expected new housing in different dwelling types and at appropriate densities for households of all income levels.

1-4 4. A plan for the movement of people and goods, which may include expressways, highways, local street systems, parking facilities, pedestrian and bikeway systems, public transit routes, terminals, airfields, - port facilities, railroad facilities, and other similar facilities or uses.

5. A plan for communitv facilities and utilities, which may include public and private education, recreation, municipal buildings, fire and police stations, libraries, hospitals, water supply and .distribution, sewerage and waste treatment, solid waste management, storm drainage and floodplain management, utility corridors and associated facilities, and other similar facilities or uses.

6. A statement of the interrelationships among the various plan components, which may include an estimate of the environmental, energy conservation, fiscal, economic development, and social consequences on the municipality.

7. A discussion of short- and long-range plan implementation strategies, which may include implications for capital improvements programming, new or updated development regulations, and identification of public funds potentially available.

8. A statement indicating the relationship of the existing and proposed development of the municipalitv to the existing: and proposed development and plans in contimous municipalities, to the objectives and plans for development in the countv of which it is a part, and to reeional trends.

Beyond these data, a Comprehensive Plan should include any additional information which has a bearing upon the suitability of any part of the Borough for development. Above all, a Comprehensive Plan must be useful to the community for which it has been created.

I

I i I I

1-5 I BASE MAP BOROUGH .OF LAURELDALE I BERKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA I I I I 1 I PART 11: I BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Before the Revolution The modem settlement of the greater Reading area began with the arrival of European immigrants, but the I lands along the Schuylkill were hardly deserted when they arrived. The Lenni Lenape tribes (referred to as the "Delaware" Indians by the Europeans) were the inhabitants of Southeastern Pennsylvania when William I Perm and his followers amved in the late seventeenth century. These Indians were semi-nomadic hunters who did a limited amount of farming during their longer periods of settlement. According to local tradition, I there was a recurring settlement along Laurel Run at the foot of Irish Mountain, near the site of the old Temple Furnace; many Indian relics were discovered by early settlers in this area. 11 European settlement began when William Penn, as a British subject, was given the colony of Pennsylvania in 1681 by King Charles I1 of England as repayment for a debt the king owed to Penn's father, who had been an I admiral in the Royal Navy. The younger Penn was a member of the Society of Friends, a religious group more commonly known even now as the "Quakers." This sect was the object of frequent persecution in I England, so, upon receipt of his lands in the American colonies, Penn took the opportunity to make an attempt at establishing a Quaker colony there. Unlike most of the European immigrants, Penn considered I the real "owners" of the colony to be the original inhabitants. So, with royal warrant in hand, Penn amved in the New World and began to bargain with the Indians for the right to settle the lands granted him by the I crown. In this way, the frontier of European settlement in Pennsylvania moved peacefully to the north and west. Even during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1763), a time marked by great animosity between I Indians and settlers throughout the English colonies, violent incidents in Pennsylvania were rare. Penn took care to establish and maintain good relations with the Indians, leaving a legacy of amicability between the natives and the European newcomers which set Pennsylvania apart from the other English colonies.

I' The land that is now Berks County was sold to Penn and his sons by the Indians in a series of agreements :I dating between 1684 and 1736. The land now occupied by Laureldale Borough was part of a deed of release agreed to by the Lenni Lenape in September 1718, the year in which William P~Mdied. Although the very 11 first Europeans in Pennsylvania were English Quakers, the tolerance they practiced attracted victims of religious persecution from all over Europe. The first white settlers in the Reading area, most of them I Germans, began to arrive in 1737. Most of these settlers were Lutherans from the Alsace and Rheinland sections of Germany near the French border. Both of these regions had been devastated by the Thuty Years'

I I1 - 1 I ,I , War in the early seventeenth century and the Wars of the Spanish Succession in the early eighteenth century. I Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Emperor of the German Confederation - who laid claim to the ancient title of Holy Roman Emperor - strenuously persecuted his Protestant subjects. The English crown, which was by now Protestant, was anxious to establish its New World colonies against the hated (and Catholic) French, so Queen Anne invited the German Protestants to settle in British America. Many of the Germans accepted this offer, some of them selling themselves into indentured servitude for a period of time in order to pay for their I passage. Of course, not all of the new arrivals were German Lutherans. Other non-Catholic groups were attracted, including Schwenkfelders, Mennonites, and Amish, as well as Swiss Calvinists and more ~I Englishmen.

I By the middle of the eighteenth century, nearly all of the inhabitants of the lands north of the City of Reading (founded in 1748) were Germans. In 1745, the area north of the aty was incorporated as Alsace Township, I Philadelphia County. This Township included the areas now occupied by the Boroughs of Laureldale and Temple as well as the Townships of Alsace, Lower Alsace, and Muhlenberg. Seven years later, in 1752, Berks County was incorporated as Pennsylvania's seventh county, being formed from parts of Philadelphia, I Lancaster, and Chester Counties. These changes had little effect upon the daily lives of the local residents, unlike those changes which began in 1776 and had a profound affect upon all the residents of the American 1 colonies.

I Berks County settlers in general had little complaint with the British. After all, these largely German colonists were grateful for the haven which,the British had given them in America. Furthermore, these I simple farmers were not as affected by economic policies of the British as were the wealthy merchants and intellectuals in Philadelphia, Boston, and Virginia. Even so, local residents were firmly in support of the I independence movement, for it offered a promise of full citizenship in their own country, rather than the status of an immigrant ruled by a foreign crown. No Revolutionary War battles were fought in Berks County, but many of the men of the County fought for the American cause. During the British occupation of I Philadelphia, Berks County residents sheltered a number of refugees from the city.

I Growth in the Reading Area The Schuylkill River was recognized as a vital component of transportation as early as 1761, when the British ' I Parliament passed an ordinance forbidding the damming or obstructing of the river. The discovery of rich coal deposits in the central and northeastern parts of the state made the river more commercially important I than ever. In 1815, the Schuylkill Navigation Company was established to construct a canal along the Schuylkill between Philadelphia and Port Carbon, near Pottsville in Schuylkill County. When completed in 1825, the canal was 106 miles long and had a drop of 618 feet between its terminal points. At its peak, more than 1.5 million tons of coal passed through Ahace Township (as this area was at that time) each year. In

11-2 !' those days of difficult overland travel, especially for freight, the canal was as important an element of the - I transportation infrastructure as expressways are today. Growth was all but inevitable. In 1838 the first post office in Alsace Township was established at Schuylkill Bend, now known as the village of Tuckerton. I With a virtual monopoly on the business of coal transport, the canal enjoyed an enormous degree of success until 1842. That was the year that the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad (P&RRR)began operation between I Port Carbon and Philadelphia: the exact same terminal points as the canal. As train service became increasingly reliable and efficient, the canal lost business. In 1863, an agreement between the Navigation I Company and the I'&RRR was made, assigning to each a set portion of business. As might be expected, this agreement soon proved unworkable. In 1870, the railroad simply leased the entire canal and proceeded to I allow it to fall into disrepair. 'I The Development of the Laureldale Area Conflict between the residents of the eastern and western portions of Alsace Township resulted in the formation of Muhlenberg Township from the western portion in 1851. The development of Laureldale as we I know it today began some fifty years later, around the turn of the century, when Edward A. Lauter laid out the Rosedale housing development on lands of the Henry Gass farm. An advertisement appearing in the I Reading Eagle of July 9,1904 promoted the sale of "320 choice building lots... from $59 to $159 ... all lots are from 20 to 25 feet in width, by 120 to 175 feet in depth." Easy terms were available and ease of access to Reading was a major selling point. In 1904, Charles Eisenbrown began to lay out the Laurel Hill section; I .. three years later, the Rosedale Addition was laid out by M.E. Lauter, a son of the developer of the original I Rosedale section.

Textiles Become a Major Industry I In the opening years of the twentieth century, the textile industry became a principal element of the economy in the greater Reading area. In Muhlenberg Township (Laureldale was not yet an incorporated Borough), the I Rosedale Knitting Company dominated the local industrial community. Rosedale was started by two Reading hotel proprietors and two other backers, who, knowing of the discontent of the workers at the I nearby Nolde and Horst mill, were convinced that they could successfully operate a mill themselves. They 1 began operation in October 1914 with about half a dozen knitting machines. Rosedale Knitting began as a producer of men's stockings. As the mill prospered, the owners grew ambitious I and decided to expand their line and produce women's silk stockings, a product which was then the exclusive domain of the huge Berkshire Knitting Mills in Wyomissing. Not only was Berkshire the worlds largest producer of ladies' silk hose at that time, but they were also the only American manufacturer of I knitting machines which could handle fine silk thread. Needless to say, they were not about to sell any of

I I1 - 3 I 1 these machines to Rosedale. This led W.C. Bitting, one of Rosedale's four original founders, to travel to I Germany and purchase silk knitting machines from Karl Lieberknecht, Inc. The relationship between Lieberknecht and Rosedale was apparently a profitable one for all parties, for Lieberknecht eventually I opened a plant in Muhlenberg Township, nearly adjacent to the Rosedale mill. In 1921, Rosedale began to produce silk stockings, ending the Berkshire monopoly and sigruficantly expanding their own presence in the textile industry. Eventually, the mill occupied five buildings with over 500 knitting machines, employed I more than 3,000 people, and produced up to 7,000 dozen hose every day. Most workers settled close to the factory. Additional housing was supplied in the new developments of Belmont (1913), Belmont Park (1915), I and Roselawn (1926). In 1923, a post office was established at Rosedale. However, the name "Rosedale" was already used by a community in Chester County, so "Laureldale," representing the combination of "Laurel I Hill" and "Rosedale," was used instead. I The Incorporation of the Borough The six contiguous Laureldale communities, shown on Map 2.1, began to develop an identity distinct from the Township. Incorporation began when Attorney William W. Whitman, acting on behalf of a group of local I residents, petitioned the Berks County Court of Quarter Sessions for a charter. A news article from July 1929 listed 591 residents who had signed the petition favoring incorporation and 200 residents who were opposed. I Although the petition was originally denied, President Judge Paul N. Schaeffer signed a decree on April 8, 1930 which made Laureldale the twenty-ninth borough in Berks County. The new Borough had 645 houses I and encompassed 446 acres, 19 perches (446.119 acres or 0.697 square mile). The first Borough Officials were elected in a special election held on June 24,1930 and were sworn in on July 8. Charles R. Yerger was the I first burgess, a position essentially the same as that of today's mayor. I The Borough grew steadily in the following years. Early growth centered on the trolley line and westward, to Kutztown Road. After World War If, open lands west of Kutztown Road and elsewhere began to fill in. Fire protection had been provided by the Central Fire Company since 1917, but other community services I did not appear until after the incorporation. Landmarks of the growth of the municipality include the creation of the Police Department in 1934, the provision of public water supply in 1940, the installation of 1 sanitary sewerage in the early 1950s, dedication of the Muhlenberg Community Library in 1964, and the Boroughs move to its current administrative offices in 1969. The Muhlenberg School District, with facilities I in both Muhlenberg Township and the Borough, has been prominent in the Borough since the 1850s. Local churches have also functioned as gathering places for the community. The Holy Guardian Angels Roman I Catholic Church, Rosedale Reformed Church, and Calvary Lutheran Church are the most prominent. I

I 11-4 I BERKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA

0 550 1100 I I -GRAPHIC SCALE 1- I 550 fl. The Boroughs population peaked in 1970. Chapter Five provides a detailed analysis of population, but a summary is shown below to offer a long-range picture of the change. The figures shown are from the official I US.Census. Figure 2.2 I BOROUGH POPULATION: U.S. CENSUS 1950 - 1990 1950 3,585 I 1960 4,051 1970 431 9 I 1980 4,047 1990 3,726

Recent Borough Historv When the Borough incorporated in 1930, the principal housing areas were already established. Although the I population continued to grow for a while, there has been essentially no new residential development of any sigruficance since the mid 1950's. The industrial sector was affected when Yuasa Battery Corporation (now a division of Yuasa-Exide) began operation in the southern part of the Borough.

The Borough celebrated its fiftieth anniversary in 1980. At that time, an overview of the town's history was published. This history, which supplied some of the information found in this chapter, noted few sigruficant events in the 1955-1980 period. At that time, about eighty percent of the land in the Borough was residential, and it was stated that there was little room for additional development within the existing neighborhoods. The extensive services available to Borough residents were listed:

"The Borough offers a wide range of services using facilities of other municipalities as well as those provided by the Borough. These include police, fire, health, sewer, water, schools, and refuse collection. Others, such as library and ambulance service, are provided by quasi-public or private . groups. The Borough contributes some financial support to these services. The Muhlenberg Township Authority furnishes water to the Borough residents and business establishments. Berks & Reading Transportation Authority supplies limited public bus transportation. Borough Council does not create, fill vacancies, or otherwise exercise influence on these authorities. The Laureldale Borough Sewer Authority, however was created by Borough Council as a financing mechanism to install and maintain sanitary sewage collector mains and interceptors, with treatment by City of Reading."

Today, the Borough is little changed from its earliest days. It remains a quiet, largely residential community. The homes are generally well-kept, with no sigruficant areas of blight or of notable wealth. Although there is no more trolley line, Laureldale is still easily accessible to Reading via the Fifth Street Highway to the west. The Borough limits were reconfigured in 1992 when the Laurel Hill area was annexed to the Borough for use as a municipal park. This annexation increased the Boroughs size by almost 73 acres, to 518.916 acres.

I1 - 5 I I

Historic Structures I' Since the Borough was originally established as a suburban housing development, built more or less en ~I masse, there are only a few historically significant structures. The Berks County Conservancy has identified several which have local significance.

~I Although the land here was once farmed, only two of the original farmhouses remain. One is the Holtry farmhouse, the original dwelling in the Belmont section, now found at 3304 Kutztown Road. Built between I 1850 and 1874, with a modem addition, the structure is still used as a residence. The other farmhouse is at I 2002 Elizabeth Avenue; it was not included in the Conservancy's historic survey. The Conservancy identified three other points of interest. The first is a series of three double-houses along 'I Frush Valley Road which were constructed between 1875 and 1899, before the original Rosedale section of Laureldale was built. The other two structures are churches: the Rosedale United Church of Christ, built at 1301 Bellevue Avenue in 1928, and the Calvary Lutheran Church at 1009 Elizabeth Avenue. Although the I current structure of the Calvary Church dates only to 1956, it occupies the site of the original 1909 chapel of I the Rosedale Sunday School Association, the first established place of worship in Laureldale. These sites are of local significance only. Modem alterations and additions to the Holtry farmhouse and the I homes on Frush Valley Road diminish their historic value. None of these sites have any potential for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. I PlanninP Implications * The dense pattem of development utilized by the early developers left little space for recreational I facilities. A few parks and playgrounds are in place, and the facilities at the Muhlenberg District schools are also used by Borough residents, but the development of the Laurel Hill annexation as a I . recreational area shows the most promise for meeting the recreation and open space needs of the I Borough residents. * The erection of worker housing next to the early mills made sense in an era when most walked to I work if possible. However, there are serious conflicts today between the residents and operations at the various industrial operations, particularly in the southern part of the Borough. Modem principles I of urban planning would have prevented the location of heavy industry in such proximity to high density residential areas. Although we now have the means to prevent similar incompatibilities in the future, we must still address the existing situation, protecting both the welfare of Borough residents I and the interests of the corporations which contribute significant tax revenues to the municipality.

I I1 - 6 I 1

I * The fact that the Borough is essentially "built-out'' indicates that any future land use plan should focus upon the identification of underutilized properties and developing regulations which will allow for I new uses in existing structures that will be an asset to the community, both fiscally and aesthetically.

I * Although population has been declining since the 1970 census, this is not likely to continue. The housing stock is sound and relatively inexpensive, the public schools are well respected, and new recreational facilities are planned for Laurel Hill. As mortality has its effect on the aging population, I young families are likely to find the Borough an attractive place to settle. I I I 1 I I I I I 1

1 I 1 I I I Introduction The corporate limits of the Borough of Laureldale enclose 519 acres (0.81 square mile) in central Berks I County, Pennsylvania. The Borough is completely surrounded by Muhlenberg Township. Originally established as a suburb to the City of Reading, development has spread from the city to surround the I Borough such that the distinction between Laureldale and the Township is not readily apparent to the casual observer. In the days when travel was less convenient than it is today, small towns like Laureldale were self- I sufficient, self-contained communities. This is no longer the case: modem transportation allows people greater mobility and greater access to services, creating a greater interdependence of communities. 1 Laureldale itself owes its existence to the old Reading trolley line, which allowed the first developers of the community to tout ease of access to the city as a prime advantage of living here. Regional associations and nearby communities have been important to the Borough since its inception, and have become even more I important in the ensuing years. This chapter will describe those associations in detail and will conclude by I considering how those relationships should be sustained to the benefit of the community. Regional relationships occur at several levels. Relationships with nearby communities like Muhlenberg I Township and the City of Reading are the most immediate, and are most important to the daily life of the Borough. Other associations tie the Borough to the County, the State, and the nation. Successful planning I endeavors require an awareness of these interrelationships, a realization of their function, and an understanding of how the Borough can have an effective voice within the various associations to the benefit I of its residents. Regional Context 1 Laureldale Borough is one of seventy-six municipalities in Berks County. The Borough is situated near the I geographic center of the County, about one mile due north of the City of Reading. The Township is included with the rest of Berks County in the Reading Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). I MSA's were established by the U.S. Census Bureau as a means to organize census information and other statistical data. Reading, the sixth largest city in the state, is the county seat and is important to Laureldale for its administrative and political functions. Urban influences and resources afforded by the City are I somewhat overshadowed by similar resources available in Muhlenberg Township. 1 111 - 1 I I Laureldale is located within the Megalopolis of the northeastern United States, a nearly continuous area of high density development stretching between Boston in the north and Washington, DC in the south. I Laureldale is approximately 35 miles northeast of Lancaster, 35 miles southwest of Allentown, 60 miles east of Harrisburg, 60 miles northwest of Philadelphia, 100 miles north of Baltimore, and 120 miles southwest of I New York City.

Regional- Relationshius I The Borough of Laureldale is part of that region which formed the original thirteen states of this nation, witnessed firsthand the industrial revolution, provided the engine which propelled this country into I economic pre-eminence on a global scale, lost industrial capacity to the southern and western sections of this country as well as to other countries, and has known both remarkable prosperity and painful recession. I As noted above and in the previous chapter, the proximity of the Borough to the City of Reading has I influenced its development since the development of the Rosedale area in 1902. Although Reading has lost some of its prominence to its suburbs - including, significantly, Muhlenberg Township - Laureldale remains a quiet town, already well-established when post-war development began to extend north from the City in the I 1950's.

I Regional Transportation Facilities None of the regional expressways or principal arterial roads pass through Laureldale. U.S.Route 222 and 1 State Route 61, major north-south arterial roads, pass through Muhlenberg to the west of the Borough; the Warren Street By-pass and SR 3055 (the "Road-to-Nowhere") are east-west expressways which pass to the I south and north of the Borough, respectively. Route 222 provides access north to Allentown and south to Lancaster. Route 61 connects Reading and Pottsville. The Warren Street By-pass joins Pricetown Road and I points to the east with Routes 222,183, and 422 on the west. Within the Laureldale itself, Kutztown Road, running generally parallel to Route 222, is the principal north- 1 south road. South of the Borough, it has an interchange with the Warren Street By-Pass before terminating in Reading. To the north, the road passes through Temple before ending at its intersection with Route 222. The 1 major east-west routes through the Borough are Bellevue and Elizabeth Avenues, connecting Route 222 with Pricetown Road. However, the awkward configuration of the roads, particularly where they join to cross the I railbed of the former ConRail line, discourages through traffic.

The arrangement of the regional road network puts Laureldale in an interesting situation: while there is no 1 direct access to any of the major roads, access is still quite convenient. This indicates that the Borough is not

I I11 - 2 I I I I

1 I I

-

LEGEND

HAWK MOUNTAIN 0 TULPEHOCKEN CREEK VALLEY PARK KAERCHER CREEK DAM 0 READING REGIONAL AIRPORT DOE MOUNTAIN SKI AREA 0 DANIEL BOONE HOMESTEAD CONRAD WEISER HOMESTEAD NOLDE FOREST ENVIRONMENTAL @ EDUCATION CENTER BLUE MARSH LAKE STATE PARK 0 FRENCH CREEK STATE PARK PENN STATE UNIVERSITY-BERKS CAMPUS @ HOPEWELL VILLAGE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 012- 4 6 8 10 I I I well suited for commercial or industrial development on a large scale, as such uses tend to be sited along I major roads. Instead, Laureldale is a prime residential area. Although there are areas where there are conflicts between industrial activities and nearby residents, the great majority of the neighborhoods are I quiet, due to the lack of noise and bustle associated with major arterial roads and expressways. The proxim- ity of such major roads indicates quick and convenient access to shopping and employment centers.

I The Reading Regional Airport in nearby Bern Township is the principal commercial airport serving Berks County. USAir Exyress provides regularly scheduled flights feeding into the domestic and international I hubs at the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore-Washington airports. Charter flight services also operate I out of Reading. Regional bus transportation is provided by the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA). I Routes serving Laureldale are described in Chapter Seven. Commercial bus service is provided by Capitol/Trailways at the Inter-City Bus Terminal in downtown Reading. National and regional bus charter I service is also available through numerous local carriers. Atlantic City, Baltimore, New York City, and Washington D.C. are popular destinations for charter trips.

I The extensive network of rail lines which traverse the region is largely attributable to the Reading and Pennsylvania Railroads. Railroads played a historic role in the development of Berks County: a major branch 1 of the Reading Railroad once bisected the Borough. Although the tracks were removed in 1992, the old railbed is still plainly visible. Today, the railroads are less prominent, providing only freight service within I the County. Disused rail corridors, like the one in Laureldale, are assuming regional significance once again as sites for recreational trails promoted through rails-to-trails programs. 1 The nearest accesses to Amtrak's passenger rail service are found at Harrisburg, Lancaster, and Philadelphia. Passenger rail service to Reading was discontinued in 1981. Recently, Amtrak has shown interest in I establishing service between New York City and Harrisburg, which would include stops in Allentown and 1 Reading.

Utilities . IC The interdependence of the municipalities in the region is becomes especially prominent when one considers the provision of utilities and services. I SEWER The Borough of Laureldale owns, operates, and maintains the sewage collection system within its corporate limits. Treatment is provided by the City of Reading Sewage Treatment Plant on Fritz's Island at I the southern tip of the City, near Cumru Township. The only facility located within Laureldale is a pump

I I11 - 3 I 1

station at the corner of Noble and Belmont Streets. This pump sends sewage from the west side of Kutztown 2 I Road into the gravity system which serves the remaining portion of the Borough.

I WATER Public water is supplied under agreement with the Muhlenberg Township Authority. Water is supplied by eleven wells sited throughout the service area; three of these are in the Borough. There are 1 several storage facilities located in the Borough as well. The system is connected to both the City of Reading water distribution system as well as the Borough of Temple. Due to these interconnections, water supply I from any of the svqtems can be diverted to either or both of the others for emergency use.

ELECTRICITY & TELEPHONE SERVICE: The Metropolitan Edison Company furnishes electric power to I Laureldale, as well as to most of of Berks County. Telephone service is provided by Bell of Pennsylvania.

I Emergency Services Emergency services for the Borough are coordinated through the Berks County Emergency Management I Agency and 9-1-1 service. The Central Fire Company, near the center of the Borough, is the first-response company for the entire Borough and part of Muhlenberg Township. The Goodwill Fire Company in the Hyde Park area of Muhlenberg Township and the Temple Fire Company in the Borough of Temple are also I readily accessible to Laureldale.

I Ambulance service is provided by the Muhlenberg Area Ambulance Association, which is actually based within the Borough. Advanced life support (ALS) rescue service is supplied by the North-Central Berks I Paramedics. Back-up support for ambulance and ALS rescue is provided by other associations and is co- I ordinated by the Berks County Emergency Management Agency. The Borough has its own police department. Details concerning staff, equipment, and back-up are provided I in Chapter Seven. Muhlenberg Township also has its own police department. Co-operation between the two departments is crucial to the interest of providing efficient, effective protection.

I Health Care Major health care facilities are available within the greater Reading area. These facilities include Community I General Hospital and St. Joseph’s Hospital in the City and the Reading Hospital and Medical Center in the I Borough of West Reading. No hospitals are located within Laureldale Borough. 1 The Muhlenberg Township School District provides primary and secondary public school education to the Boroughs of Laureldale and Temple and Muhlenberg Township. The District operates the Muhlenberg

I 111 - 4 I 1 Senior High School, the Muhlenberg Middle School, the C.E. Cole Intermediate School, and the Muhlenberg I Primary School. Currently, total enrollment for the district is approximately 2,300 students. The school complex is centrally located between Route 222 and Kutztown Road on a tract which is partly in Laureldale D, Borough and partly in Muhlenberg Township. The Reading Muhlenberg Vocation-Technical School is 'located nearby in the Southeastern part of Muhlenberg Township along Spring Valley Road and the Warren 1 Street By-Pass.

Holy Guardian Angels Elementary School is part of the Roman Catholic parochial school system. It is I located along Kutztown Road just south of the Borough. Enrollment is between 200 and 250. Central Catholic and Holy Name High Schools in Reading are secondary parochial schools. Approximately 500 1 students attend each school.

I .There are a number of institutes of higher education within commuting distance of the Borough. Public and private four-year colleges and universities are found in the Reading, Kutztown and Allentown-Bethlehem 1 areas. The following list identifies the nearest.

PRIVATE FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES I Albright College, Reading Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales, Allentown Alvernia College, Reading I Cedar Crest College, Allentown Lafayette College, Easton WghUniversity, Bethlehem Moravian College, Bethlehem I Muhlenberg College, Allentown

I PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (4-YEAR): Kutztown University, Kutztown Pennsylvania State University: Allentown Campus, Fogelsville Berks Campus, Spring Township (Reading) I !3chuylkill Campus, Schuylkill Haven

OTHERS: I Lehigh County Community College, Schnecksville Northampton County Community College, Bethlehem I Reading Area Community College, Reading

Government I Laureldale is one of thirty-one Boroughs in Berks County. The governing body is the Borough Council, comprised of elected officials who govern and administer municipal policy, public works, and public I property; define the duties of municipal agencies and appoint their members; levy and collect taxes; conduct

I 111 - 5 I fiscal matters; establish and enforce land use regulations; approve subdivisions and land developments; and assure the provision of municipal services.

I Laureldale is in the jurisdiction of District Court 1-6, along with Temple Borough and Muhlenberg Township. The District Justice office is located on Leesport Avenue in Muhlenberg Township near Temple.

1 Laureldale is part of the 126th State House District, one of five municipalities comprising this district. Berks

~ County has six State House Districts. The Borough is part of the 11th State Senatorial District, one of two I such districts in the County. Finally, Berks and Schuylkill Counties comprise the Sixth Federal Legislative District.

Culture and Recreation Social, cultural, and recreational facilities afforded by the metropolitan areas of Reading and Allentown provide a wide variety of diversions to Borough residents.

The most prominent museums are the Allentown Art Museum and the Reading Public Museum and Art Gallery. A number of smaller museums focus on local history. Theatrical productions are featured at most of the colleges and universities. Live theatre is also presented by the Genesius Theatre and the Reading Community Players (both based in Reading) and the Pennsylvania Stage Company of Allentown. Local musical organizations include the Allentown Band, the Allentown Symphonic Association, the Reading Symphony Orchestra, the Berks Ballet Theatre, the Berks Grand Opera, the Lehigh Valley Chamber Orchestra, and the Reading Civic Opera.

Collegiate, professional, and semi-professional organizations sponsor athletic contests throughout the region, featuring baseball, basketball, football, ice hockey, and cycling. The closest professional major league organ- izations are based in Philadelphia. A Class AA professional baseball team operated by the Phillies organization is located in Reading. The Reading Phillies play home games at the Reading Municipal Stadium on the north side of the City. Bear Stadium in Boyertown is home to the perpetually successful Boyertown Bears and site of many regional play-offs and tournaments. In addition, the recently created American Basketball Association, with teams throughout the northeastern U.S., has franchises in Allentown (the Jets) and Pottsville (the Stingers).

Collegiate sports at Albright College, Alvemia college, Kutztown University, Lafayette College, and Lehigh University are within commuting distance. The Stabler Arena at Lehigh is a major venue for sports events and concerts.

111 - 6 1 I The Trexlertown Velodrome, between Kutztown and Macungie, offers a unique asset as a venue for world- I class cycling. Due in part to the influence of the velodrome and in part to the varied topography, the Berks- I Lehigh area is a nationally recognized center of competitive and recreational cycling. The Blue Marsh Ski area near Bemville and Doe Mountain Ski Area in Longswamp Township offer winter I recreation facilities to the entire region. Doe Mountain is the larger of the two and is extremely popular with day-trippers from Philadelphia and the rest of southeastem Pennsylvania. The Domey Park and Wild Water I Kingdom Amusement Park complex, just west of Allentown, is a popular attraction during the summer. The Blue Mountain and Reading Railroad in Muhlenberg Township is a regional railroad attraction offering ~I steam train excursions. There are a number of regional parks and recreational areas within the County. Kaercher Creek Dam, the ~I Conrad Weber Homestead, Blue Marsh Lake, Tulpehocken Creek Valley Park, the Nolde Forest Environmental Education Center, the Daniel Boone Homestead, French Creek State Park, and Hopewell I Village National Historic Site are all within a forty-minute drive from the Borough.

II Planning- Implications The spread of suburban development is sometimes traumatic for small towns, as they see their once distinct identity slowly eroding to become part of an undifferentiated sprawl. Laureldale, however, is a bit different: I it has been a suburban community from its very beginning, and residents are long accustomed to looking to the City of Reading for entertainment and services. Since the principal roads pass around rather than I through the town, Laureldale has not had to deal with the development of commercial strips or the "mailing" of its landscape, and has instead maintained its small-town character. In short, the northward spread of the I city has reinforced the Borough's identity rather than eroded it. I Laureldale has much to recommend it as a residential area. Since the road network includes only one street . of any regional significance (Kutztown Road), Borough neighborhoods are generally quiet. Yet several major arteries are readily accessible, and there are major employment centers and shopping areas within a few I minutes' drive. There are also numerous regional resources for education and leisure activities. In spite of its assets, the Borough has seen a steady drop in population. As dkcussed more fully in Chapter Five, this is I largely due to demographics. However, it may also be partially a result of the type of housing available: most of the housing stock is between fifty and seventy years old and is not of a style popular today. If this is I in fact the case, the Borough may have a serious problem, for there is virtually no land left for development. Chapter Five also evaluates this issue in greater depth. 1

I I11 - 7 I 1 Conversely, the Borough is ill-suited for modem commercial and industrial development. As Laureldale I lacks the visibility and access provided by expressways and major arterials, as well as large tracts of developable land, large-scale development of this type will tend to locate elsewhere. This tendency is I exemplified by the development along Route 222 and Route 61 and at the interchanges of the Road-to- Nowhere and the Warren Street By-pass in Muhlenberg Township. The proximity of this existing development to the Borough further diminishes any potential demand for future development of this type in I the Borough.

I It is vital to the economic health of a community to maintain a mixture of land uses. A number of studies have been performed to demonstrate that residential uses do not generate sufficient revenue to pay for the I municipal services they consume. The tax revenue generated by commercial and industrial uses allow municipalities to provide the services demanded by residential and institutional uses. The Borough needs to I work with the local businesses to maintain an environment conducive to their operations; the loss of commerce and industry could be devastating to the fiscal resources of the town. At the same time, the Borough needs to work to protect residents from any dangerous or unpleasant impacts on the community I which may result from such operations.

I Summarv It appears that Laureldale's most important external relationship is with Muhlenberg Township. It is clearly 1 in the Boroughs best interest to maintain communication with the Township. Not only is the Township a direct provider of some services to the Borough, but alliance with the Township could enhance the Boroughs 1 voice in dealing with other entities - such as the City of Reading and the school district - which serve both the Borough and the Township. Co-operation with the Township can also assure that Laureldale will retain a I character distinct from the Township. Internally, the Borough can maintain its position in the region by working to sustain and improve municipal I services. This involves establishing good relations with both residents and businesses. Good communication with residents will assure that services are appropriate and sufficient. Creating a positive environment for I business will help to achieve the level of tax revenue necessary to provide such services. Due to its prominence in the community, the Yuasa-Exide operations are of particular concern. 1 I I I I11 - 8 I I I I I Development never occurs on a blank slate. The natural features of the land have a direct impact upon its I development suitability. For a fully developed municipality such as Laureldale, identifying and analyzing the environmental features is more useful as a means of understanding existing conditions than for land use planning. Also, the information collected in this chapter will serve useful in the event that any area would be I proposed for redevelopment. Finally, although the Laurel Hill annexation is not planned for development at this time, it is useful to know the potential of the site - at least in a general way - in case the question of I development would ever arise.

I Topographv- Topography is a collective term for landforms, including hills, valleys, and plains. Common measures of I topography are elevation above sea level and slope. Slope is the ratio between a change in elevation and the horizontal distance over which that change is observed. It is expressed as a percentage. For example, if I elevation changes ten feet over a distance of 100 feet, then the slope is 10 divided by 100, or 10%. Topographically, the Borough of Laureldale falls into two clearly defined areas. The majority of the Borough I is level to gently sloping. East of Oak Street, in the Laurel Hill area, steep slopes begin almost immediately I and extend to the eastern Borough line. Slopes are mapped on Figure 4.1. The ground in the Borough slopes down as one travels from east to west. The highest point in the Borough is 1000 feet above sea level, and occurs along the borough line near the easternmost point of the Borough. The lowest point is 321 above sea level and occurs at the western side of the Borough, where Belmont Avenue intersects the borough line. Figure 4.2 is a relief map of the Borough, showing both elevations and drainage I areas, which are described below.

I Drainage Laureldale Borough lies entirely within the Schuylkill River watershed. Laurel Run and Bernhart Creek, two 1 minor tributaries of the schuylkill River, drain about three-quarters of the Borough. As illustrated on Figure 4.2, Laurel Run drains the northern portion of the Borough and encompasses 39.1% of the land area, or just I over 200 acres. The Bernhart Creek drainage basin occupies about 190 acres (37.1% of total) in the

I N-1 I - I I I I I I I I I I I I

I LEGEND ...... 25% I ...... I..."..."."...... I, I SLOPE ! BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE IiI BERKS COUNTY PENNSY LVAN IA I ...... / ttoo I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 300’ 400’ I 400’ 500’ I 500’ 600’ I - ...... 600’ 700’ I 700’ - 800’ I 800’ - 900’ [3...... 900’ i ...... - 1000’ RELIEF, DRAINAGE I BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE BERKS COUNTY PEN NSY LVANI A &/-\& LIMIT OF DRAINAGE BASIN I & .:.:.: I WETLAND I I southeastern part of the Borough. The remaining southwestern portion drains overland or by means of I unnamed floodways directly into the SchuyW.

I Geology The geology of Berks County complex. Geologists have defined "provinces," geographic areas which are I defined by similarities in rock composition and the period of time which they were formed. Most of Berks County is in the Valley & Ridge Province, which lies between the Coastal Plain Province bordering the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachian Plateaus Province of western Pennsylvania and upstate New York. I Provinces are further divided into "sections." Most of the County is in the Great Valley Section: the area between Blue Mountain and South Mountain. The most remarkable geologic feature of the area is the I "Reading Prong," a slice of very old, hard rock which is actually part of the New England Province, which intrudes into the heart of the Valley & Ridge Province. On the surface, the Reading Prong varies from ten to I fifteen miles in width and runs in a southwesterly direction as far as the City of Reading. Irish Mountain, Deer Path Hill, and Mount Penn, are direct results of this formation. I Figure 4.3 shows the surface geology of Laureldale, identdying the geologic period during which the given I rock type was formed. Figure 4.3a, beginning on the page after the map, provides more detail.

The oldest rock formation underlying Laureldale is from the Pre-Cambrian Period. Located in the I easternmost part of the Borough, this is the western fringe of the Reading Prong. The Cambrian Period is the next most recent, geologically. Cambrian rock forms a broad swathe surrounding the Reading Prong. The I extent of the more recent Ordovician rock actually defines the Great Valley Section of the Valley & Ridge Province. The Quaternary features are, geologically, superficial. Both alluvium and colluvium are the result I of erosion, alluvium being water-borne and colluvium being the result of higher rock wearing away and spreading to lower slopes. I Figure 4.3 also shows a number of faults within the Borough. Faults are those places where different rock formations meet and where movement of these formations occurs. Due to the complex geography of the I County, there are dozens of fault lines in the Reading area. Although earthquakes occur along fault lines, the I faults in the Borough are not quake-prone. I I

I Iv-2 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I HEAVY LINE INDICATES FAULT. THIN LINE INDICATES GEOLOGIC CONTACT BETWEEN TWO GEOLOGIC UNITS OF I THE SAME PERIOD. I

I CAMBRIAN GEOLOGY I BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE I PRE-CAMBRIAN MORE ANCIENT

I SYMBOLS ARE EXPLAINED I ON FIGURE 4.3a Figure 4.3a

DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS d

Geologic units are listed in order of formation, beginning with the most recent. The Periods shown do not constitute a comprehensive list of all defined geologic Periods, but are limited to those with representative formations in the Borough.

SYMBOL NAME DESCRIPTION QUATERNARY PERIOD Qal Alluvium Saturated or periodically wet deposits; predominantly fine-grained, silty to sandy. Up to eighty feet thick.

Qc Colluvium Gravelly silt containing many pebbles and cobbles. Up to 100 feet thick.

ORDOVICIAN PERIOD Oh6 Hamburg sequence, Siltstone, claystone, and shale. lithotectonic unit 6

CAMBRIAN PERIOD 6r Richland formation lnterbedded dolomite and limestone. Up to 1700 feet thick. Contemporaneous with Maiden Creek member of Allentown formation.

6almc Allentown formation, Dolomite and magnesian limestone. Up to 1230 Maiden Creek member feet thick. Contemporaneous with Richland formation.

Galm Allentown formation, Magnesian limestone and dolomite. Up to 800 feet Muhlenberg member thick.

6ha Hardyston formation Sandstone composed of quartzite and feldspar.

PRE- CA M B RIA N PERIOD g Granitic gneiss A form of granite.

The "ghp" and "hg" designations also indicate granitic gneiss, but with varying amounts of assimilated hornblende gneiss. These assimilations do not affect the basic properties of the formation, and are not treated separately in this text hereafter.

SOURCE: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 1979.

Geology affects three sigruficant aspects of planning: quantity and quality of groundwater supply, suitability for building foundations, and feasibility of mining activity. A detailed description of the development- m related characteristics of the map units is provided in Figure 4.4. MINING: The local Cambrian formations are high-quality limestone and, until recently, were I quarried at two nearby locations in Muhlenberg Township. Historically, the mining of "brown ore," a

Iv-3 low-quality iron ore, was a major economic activity of this area, and there may yet be deposits of zinc and uranium of sufficient quantity to justify mining. GROUNDWATER SUPPLY Both the quantity and the quality of groundwater depend upon the water-bearing capacity of the rock. When used as a water supply, the rock is referred to as an "aquifer." Where homes and businesses depend upon individual on-site wells, the quality of the I aquifer is crucial. Even in Laureldale, where there is public water supply throughout the municipality, this is a concern since the wells which provide the supply are within and near the Borough. The Cambrian and Ordovician formations are both predominately limestone: a porous rock which is an excellent aquifer. However, this porosity also makes the groundwater vulnerable to contamination. CONSTRUCTION SUITABILITY: Because building foundations extend into bedrock, its strength and stability affect foundation requirements and construction costs. Very hard rock provides an excellent foundation, but is difficult to excavate. In Laureldale, the limestone which underlies most of the area is too soft for conventionally designed large structures. Dueto the porosity solubility of limestone, sinkholes and "shadow streams" -waterways which flow just below the surface - are common. Their presence emphasizes the hazards of inappropriate construction. The State Department of Environmental Resources offers this analysis of sinkhole formation:

' "Sinkhole development in soils above carbonate rocks [such as limestone] is most prevalent where the water table is relatively deep, but sinkholes may occur almost anywhere. Many of the sinks appear to be old or recurrent features, but new development may occur, especially where the surface drainage pattern is modified or the water table is affected by heavy pumping. Sinkholes represent a significant danger of surface collapse which may damage stnictures. Major construction on carbonate rocks should be preceded by extensive investigation of local solution features and sinks, including extensive core drilling."'

Figure 4.4 GEOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Geologic units are listed in order of age, beginning with the most recent.

QUATERNARY PERIOD Qal: Alluvium - Forms level land adjacent to streams; limit along major streams corresponds to 100- year flood elevation. Material is easily excavated, but has poor cut-slope stability where saturated. High water tables and poor drainage are the major limitations to land use. UNSUITABLE FOR BUILDING FOUNDATIONS due to flood risk and low strength. However, since the formation is usually thin, adequate foundations for major structures in areas of low flood risk may be made by excavation to underlying bedrock. NOT USED AS AN AQUIFER.

Qc: Colluvium - Moderately to gently sloping aprons below major hills; good surface drainage. Easily excavated. ADEQUATE BUILDING FOUNDATION FOR LIGHT TO MEDIUM STRUCTURES. Thin

~ I David B. MacLachlan, Geolom and Mineral Resources of the Temde and Fleetwood Ouadrangles,- Berks Countv, Pennsvlvania (Harrisburg :Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 1979), p.55.

IV-4 I enough in some areas to excavate to bedrock for heavy structures. Where the deposits overlie carbonate rocks (not the case in Laureldale), the soluble character of the substrate mav sometimes I affect foundations for heavy structures, but other factors (soil composition, slope, depth to water table) usually mitigate this possibility. NOT USED AS AN AQUIFER.

ORDOVICIAN PERIOD I Oh6: Hamburg sequence, lithotectonic unit 6 - Moderate, stable natural slopes above adjacent carbonate rock terrain. Good surface drainage. Excavation is moderately easy with heavy equipment. Fair cut-slope stability; rock disintegrates to small fragments after fairly short exposure. GOOD I BUILDING FOUNDATION FOR HEAVY STRUCTURES. MEDIAN YIELD FOR NON-DOMESTIC WELLS: 190 gal/min. MEDIAN YIELD FOR DOMESTIC WELLS: 30 gal/min. CAMBRIAN PERIOD - In western Laureldale, this is carbonate rock underlying gently rolling topography. I This formation has little surface runoff except during very heavy rainfall: sub-surface drainage is excellent. Water table commonly lies below the bedrock surface, and soil wetness is a problem only in some scattered undrained depressions. The bedrock surface is irregular due to solution; soil thickness I varies considerably, even over small areas. EXCELLENT BUILDING FOUNDATION FOR ALL STRUCTURES. Can be difficult to excavate: blasting is typically required. Maintains steep cut slopes. Risks attendant on sinkhole development and solution cavities in foundation rocks should be carefully I investigated at any construction site. Disturbance of the ground-water equilibrium (by heavy pumping, by reduction of recharge area due to extensive paving, or by concentration of stormwater runof) may cause sinkhole development in areas where this had not previously been a problem. Groundwater supply is highly susceptible to pollution. I 6r: Richland formation - Characteristic Cambrian formation. EXCELLENT WELL YIELDS; many wells yield 1,000 gal/min or more. 6almc: Allentown formation, Maiden Creek member - Characteristic Cambrian formation. I Unusually high cut-slope stability. EXCELLENT WELL YIELDS; many wells yield 1,000 gaVmin or more. 6alm: Allentown formation, Muhlenberg member - Characteristic Cambrian formation. Unusually I high cut-slope stability. May not be suitable for heavy structures. EXCELLENT WELL YIELDS; many wells yield 1,000 gaVmin or more. 6ha: Hardyston formation - Characteristic Cambrian formation. Well yields adequate for most uses, I although far lower than other Cambrian aquifers. MEDIAN YIELD FOR NON-DOMESTIC WELLS: 31 g al/min .

PRE-CAMBRIAN PERIOD I g: Granitic Gneiss - Principal constituent rock of the Reading Prong, characterized by hills rising as high as 600 feet above the surrounding lowlands. GOOD BUILDING FOUNDATION FOR ALL STRUCTURES; blasting usually required for excavation. WELL YIELDS ARE POOR, less than 5 I gal/min, and are only adequate for domestic use. SOURCE: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Pennsylvania I Geologic Survey, 1979.

I Soils are a combination of rock finely ground by erosive forces (called the "parent material") and humus, the decayed remains of the plants supported by the soil. The parent material is usually derived from the rock I lying beneath the soil. A notable exception is the case of alluvial soils. The parent material of these soils is matter which has been deposited by running water. These soils are found along streams and in generally I low-lying spots which are prone to flooding.

I IV-5 I Soil types affect planning and development in several ways. First, as already noted, if a location is covered I by alluvial soils, then that area is likely to be flooded on a regular basis and should be avoided as a building site unless the intended use is water-dependent. Secondly, on-site sewage disposal systems require certain soil characteristics in order to function properly. For Laureldale, which is completely served by public I sewerage, this is not a significant issue. Finally, soil characteristics will also determine suitability for I agriculture. As a small urban area, agriculture productivity and preservation are not a municipal concern. Soils are classified into types according to their parent material, particle size, slope, and degree of erosion. A I single type may cover a land area of many acres or only a fraction of an acre. Soil types in Laureldale are mapped on Figure 4.5. Soil types are grouped into series. All types within a series will have the same I composition of parent material and consistency; only slope and degree of erosion will vary. There are forty- nine soil series in Berks County according to the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S.Department of Agriculture. Four of these are found in Laureldale. However, as Figure 4.5 shows, about three-quarters of I the Borough is covered by "Made Land." Made Land are soils which have been disturbed by human activity (like excavation or fill) such that the natural arrangement of the soil layers has been destroyed. Therefore, I the characteristics which the soils once had are no longer observable, and only the original parent material can be identified. In the western part of the Borough, the parent material is limestone, in the portion between I Kutztown Road and Rosedale Avenue soils are based on shale and sandstone, and the soils in the sector between Rosedale Avenue and Oak Street originated from granite. Note that these parent materials - I limestone, shale/sandstone, and granite - and the areas where they occur closely follow the bedrock geology mapped on Figure 4.3. Only the areas east of Oak Street and in the extreme southern part of the Borough I have soils which are sufficiently undisturbed to be identified.

The Andover and Atkins series are both alluvial soils. Note that the Andover series occupies a narrow strip I through a densely developed part of the Borough. The area east of Oak Street is characterized by Edgemont soils. Where slopes are gentle or moderate, Edgemont soils are excellent for farm activity. In fact, the EcB2 I type within the Edgemont series is classified as prime agricultural soil by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S.Department of Agriculture. This type is found in the area between Bennett Street and Crystal Rock I Road; it is the only area of prime agricultural soil in the Borough. I Woodlands The only sigruficant woodland in the Borough is in the Laurel Hill area. Elsewhere, there are virtually no wooded areas outside of parks and shade trees in residential neighborhoods. The woodlands in Laurel Hill I are important, serving as ground cover to inhibit erosion and stream sedimentation, thus minimizing flow to I the storm sewer system and protecting the quality of surface waters in the adjacent Township. At a smaller I IV-6 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND I ALLUVIAL SOILS P R IM E AG R I C U LTURAL I n*. SOILS SOLS I Material We = Welkert BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE I BERKS COUNTY PEN NSYLVAN IA

1- I UQ n. I I scale, structures and uses located in or near wooded areas enjoy protection from wind and summer sun along with the generally moderating effect that woods have on the climate in their immediate vicinity.

Surface Waters The Schuylkill River is the dominant surface water of the immediate area, although it does not actually flow through the Borough. The Schuylkill River is a major river in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has been classified as a "Scenic River" by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Nearby I Felix Dam accommodates recreational boating. As noted earlier in this chapter, Laurel Run and Bemhart Creek drain about three-quarters of Laureldale, I although neither actually pass through the Borough. There are no surface waters of sigruficance in Laureldale.

Floodulains and Wetlands The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which identifies floodplains and other flood-prone areas, has determined that there are no such areas in Laureldale. The National Wetlands Inventorv of the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (Temple quadrangle) identifies only one wetland area in the Borough, which is associated with a man-made impoundment at the eastern extremity of the municipality along Elizabeth Avenue. This area is mapped on Figure 4.4 along with the soils.

I Climate Data available on the climate of Laureldale Borough is provided in the publication Soil Survev: Berks Countv Pennsvlvania. Since the Borough is centrally located within Berks County, the overall weather characteristics for the County are applicable to the Borough.

The Survev states that Berks County has a moderate humid continental climate. Its location on the leeward side of the mountains in east-central Pennsylvania contributes to winters that are comparatively short and mild. Summers are long and frequently humid. The average relative humidity for the year is generally higher than sixty-five percent. Two-thirds of the time, skies are clear to partly cloudy, and the average amount of sunshine is about fifty-seven percent of the possible amount. Storms are usually sufficient to supply an adequate amount of water for agriculturalpurposes as well as commercial and industrial use: approximately forty-one inches of precipitation annually. The average monthly temperatures run from slightly more than 30°F in January to 77°F in July. The average annual temperature is about 54°F.

IV-7 Natural Features and Regulatorv Controls ' Some of the features noted above are subject to the regulatory control of agencies other than the Borough government. Federal, state, and county departments and agencies possess regulatory control over .natural resources such as watersheds, groundwater, streams, floodplains, wetlands, erosion, and sedimentation. Governmental entities, such as the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, and the Berks County Conservation District impose limitations upon municipal policy through their own superseding standards. The resource protection policies of the municipality and the policies presented in this Comprehensive Plan respect these regulations.

Phvsicallv Constrained and Environmentallv Sensitive Lands Natural features have presented few development constraints in most of Laureldale, as evidenced by the extensive development which has occurred here. Only the Laurel Hill area, annexed by the Borough in 1992, shows any significant limits to construction. As it happens, this area is already planned for recreational use. This type of development, which can be implemented with little actual construction activity, is well-suited for this area.

Summarv The topography in most of the Borough is level to gently sloping. The Laurel Hill area has the only extensive steep slope areas.

The entire Borough is in the Schuylkill River watershed. About one-fourth drains directly to the river and three-fourths drains first to one of two minor tributaries.

I Cambrian, Ordovician, and Quaternary formations comprise the underlying geology of the developed portions of the Borough. All of these, except for the small alluvial portion of the Quaternary geology, provide a good-to-excellentfoundation for residential construction. The Cambrian formations in the western third of the'Borough are outstanding sources of groundwater, but are prone to contamination and are also subject to sinkhole formation, especially if the groundwater equilibrium is disturbed. 1 -_

Most soils in the Borough have been altered by human activity to the extent that their natural structure can I no longer be identified. The parent material of these soils is clearly related to the underlying geology. Soil properties affecting suitability for on-site sewage disposal and agricultural use are not important here since I the Borough is served by public sewerage and there are no farms. Small areas of alluvial soils indicate susceptibility to flooding in the blocks between Elizabeth and Myrtle Streets. I

I IV-8 ;I The only significant woodlands are in the Laurel Hill area. Because of the steep slopes here, these woods have an important role in controlling stormwater runoff and erosion.

Planning Implications This inventory and analysis of natural features within the Borough of Laureldale has encompassed the entire I jurisdiction of the municipality. Since the Borough is virtually built out, this information is not really useful for planning areas of future development. The demographics described in Chapter Five indicate that accommodating growth is a moot issue anyway - at least through the horizon year of this document. Instead, I this chapter has shown that natural features continue to affect development, even development which is already in place. In short, we can see that from the perspective of topography and geology, this area is ‘I generally well-suited to the extensive residential development which we see today. While there are a few areas which may be flood-prone, we can expect that the housing stock, in general, is not likely to be affected I with problems of subsidence or erosion. Heavier structures, such as those needed for industrial or large- scale commercial use, may be safely accommodated in many parts of the Borough; however, risks related to I sinkhole formation should be carefully evaluated prior to any construction activity. The anticipated recreational use of the Laurel Hill annexation is apparently a wise choice. The slopes and soils make the area prone to erosion. The woodlands now found on the site mitigate this tendency and should therefore be I maintained to the greatest extent possible. Laurel Hill has a varied geology and could, theoretically, accommodate heavy structures in places. However, the areas adjacent to existing roads are best suited to I smaller, lighter buildings. . I I I I I I I

I IV-9 Introduction The analysis of trends in population is one of the most important parts of this planning effort. Anticipating the number of future residents and their approximate age helps the Borough to anticipate demand for different municipal services and land uses. It also helps to forecast that portion of Borough revenue which is I derived from per capita and earned income taxes. Forecasting population - like forecasting the weather - sometimes seems more like magic than science. The problem lies in the number of assumptions which must I be made. Typically, one assumes that regional conditions such as employment opportunities, tax rates, transportation facilities, land use patterns, housing availability, and the general desirability of the area for residential use will remain unchanged. Of course, over the course of a decade, all of these factors are likely to change. For small communities, like Laureldale, predicting the future is even more difficult, since the population could change significantly as a result of a single major development - residential or non- residential - or the loss of one business.

Laureldale has fewer conditions susceptible to change than some communities. Although change is always possible, we contend that major changes in the municipality and the immediately surrounding area are not I likely. The Borough and the surrounding areas of Muhlenberg Township are extensively developed, so no major residential, commercial, or industrial center is likely to be introduced to the locality. Similarly, the I local transportation network is well-developed; anticipated changes (see Chapter Fourteen) are not likely to have a major impact on the size of the Borough. Finally, the local business community is apparently stable. I Even during the recent difficult times, the major local employers remained in operation, although many did trim their payrolls.

I It is not enough just to look at the numbers and see how they have changed. A useful analysis must establish why the changes occurred, and consider the likelihood of those conditions continuing. This chapter will I examine past trends, identify their causes, and establish population projections for the future of the Borough. This will include an assessment of the number of residents, their ages, and some characteristics, including I housing, income, and education. I

I v-1 I General Trends Laureldale was established as a Borough on April 8,1930 - missing by one week inclusion as an independent municipality in the decennial national census of 1930. No records exist as to the total population of the Borough at its incorporation, although an early history' of the Borough noted that there were 1,574 residents eligible to vote at the date of incorporation. Of course, this number would not include anyone under the age of twenty-one. The 1940 Census, the first which included the Borough of Laureldale as separate municipality, reported 3,395 residents. Population peaked in 1970 and has been declining since.

Figure 5.1 POPULATION OF THE BOROUGH: 1940 - 1990

1940 - 3,395 1950 - 3,585 1960 - 4,051 1970 - 4,519 1980 - 4,047 1990 - 3,726

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, years as shown.

The data on racial composition of the population from the 1990 Census reveal a high degree of racial homogeneity within the Borough. Of the total number in 1990, only twenty-one residents (0.6%) were black and nine (0.2%) were of Asian origin. Thirty-six residents (1.0%) were of Hispanic origin.

Analvtical Methods In some cases, particularly in more populous areas, a consistent change or rate of change in the number of I residents may be observed. Where this pattern is found, reasonable population projections may be established by extending the observed trend. Obviously, this method requires the assumption that other I conditions (such as birth rate, mortality rate, average age of the population, local employment availability, housing affordability, and availability of land for development) will remain more or less constant. Figure 5.1 shows that there has been no clear, consistent trend of population in Laureldale. Instead, the population I increased at an increasing rate for thirty years, and then began to decrease. For this reason, we will not use the conventional methods (extrapolating past arithmetic or geometric changes) to establish a population I forecast. The forecast methodology we have used is described in detail later in this chapter. I

I ~ ~~~ 1 Laureldale 1930 - 1940 One Tenth of a Centw, n.d., n.p., n.pag.

v-2 It is reasonable to question whether the observed downward trend in the number of residents will continue, or if the Borough's population is cyclical, rising and falling over a course of years. Consider zuhy the population would change:

The state of the LOCAL ECONOMY will indicate whether people will be attracted to the area to I work, or whether tend to leave the area because of a lack of employment opportunity. Even if job opportunities are limited in the Borough itself, an employment center some miles away may support population growth here if transportation facilities accommodate easy commuting. Recall that Laureldale owes its creation and early growth due to the existence of the Rosedale Knitting Mills, a major employer within the municipal limits, and its ease of access to the City of Reading by way of the old trolley line.

AGE COMPOSITION should also be considered. A large proportion of residents in their twenties I' and early thirties suggests an imminent spurt in the population as they begin to have children. A large percentage of elderly residents may also be an indication of future growth, but in the longer term, as many elderly live alone and may be replace by young families as mortality has its effect.

The available quantity, quality, and type of HOUSING will also affect the population. While the death or departure of elderly residents may make room for new families, whether they choose to locate here'will depend upon the suitability of the available housing stock for reing a family. This may be a factor against Laureldale, since large homes on lots of an acre or more are generally preferred today over the small homes on small lots which are prevalent in the Borough.

Finally, one must consider the availability of DEVELOPABLE LAND, particularly of land suitable for housing. The availability of public sewerage and water supply is also significant. While the Borough has the facilities, there is little land available for new housing.

In conclusion we can state that, as far as these four factors are concerned, the Borough is likely to experience continuing decline in population, at least in the short term. The local economy is generally stable. Although many local employers reduced their payrolls during the recent economic downturn, none actually left the area. Since Laureldale is so close to Reading, one must take a regional view of the economy rather than a strictly local one. With such a perspective, we see that the local economy may be the chief asset at this time, as the Reading area continues to be the economic and industrial center of the region. Examining the age composition of the population (in greater detail below), shows an increasing proportion of elderly, a fairly stable proportion (although a declining number) of individuals in their working years, and a declining proportion of school-age children. Interestingly, these are all trends which have been observed in the

v-3 I

nation's population as a whole. As already noted, the type of housing available and the lack of developable I land work against population growth.

I In the longer term, there is reason to believe that the decline will "bottom out" and reverse itself. Located within a generally prosperous center for commerce, industry, and services, it is highly unlikely that I population will ever decline to the point where the Borough becomes a ghost town. Part of the past decline may be due to the housing types most common in the Borough. In the years after World War II, when this I country experienced an enormous surge of population growth, a new type of suburb became popular. While older suburbs, likr 1.aureldale, were essentially small towns, these new suburbs were huge, sprawling developments where each home was placed on a lot of half an acre, an acre, or even more. Cities and towns I like Laureldale began to lose residents. This trend has continued for so long that some now consider it an irreversible fact of life. However, with rising land costs and a growing awareness of the inefficiency of this I style of suburban development, there is evidence that it is losing popularity. Today, the cutting edge of residential development is the "neo-traditional" form, characterized by smaller lots, higher building density, I a grid-based street system, and vehicle access to lots by means of alleys along the rear yard all features of Laureldale for the past ninety years. In addition, housing quality in the Borough is generally high, and most I homes are well maintained. While the lack of developable land eliminates the possibility of any housing boom, these trends provide assurance that there will be a continuing - and probably growing - market for I Borough housing in years to come. We expect time to show that the population of the Borough is cyclical. As described below, we expect the I 2000 census to show further decline in population, although the percentage of loss should be smaller than I what was observed between 1980 and 1990. By 2010, a slight increase may be observed. Forecast Methodology 1 As noted earlier, using past trends to forecast the future population just does not work for Laureldale: population has risen mid fallen, so which trend is valid? To develop an alternative method, we considered the fact that Laureldale is a remarkably stable community. We evaluated recent census data using "static I analysis." Static analysis requires two sets of census data from consecutive censuses. For each set of data, the population must be broken down into groups according to age. The analysis is most easily done using a line I graph (see Figures 5.2,5.3, and 5.5). Note that some of the age groups cover a span of five years while others include ten. The graph is used to answer this question: if the population were completely static -no births, I no deaths, no migration - how would the age distribution from one census compare with the that of the next census? The data from the earlier census are plotted. Then, each age group is advanced ten years, and the I data are plotted again. The Figures show this as the "projected population. Finally, the actual data from the later census are plotted: shown here as the "actual" line. The difference between the "projected line and the

I v-4 I I "actual" line shows what age groups moved in and which ones moved out. A divergence of the two lines is I expected in two different areas: a drop, which may or may not appear in the "projected' line, is expected from the late teens to early twenties as a result of the late-teen group leaving the Borough for schooling and I early career. Also, the projections for the age groups over 65 will be too large, as stasis assumes no deaths. These effects are compensated for in the final calculations to obtain the population projection for 2000. I As shown in Figure 5.2, the projection for 1980 shows a pattern almost identical to the actual 1980 census - except that every age group was lower than what had been projected. This suggests an even, across-the- I board out-migration from the Borough and only a negligible amount of new births and in-migration. Figure 5.3 shows that a striking similarity also exists between the 1990 projection and the actual 1990 census figures. I However, in this case there are a few intriguing aberrations. While many groups show a net loss, the 25-29, 35-44, and 60-64groups all show net gain. This demonstrates that there is some in-migration to the I community and, since these increases are in age groups which are producing children, suggests that there may be growth in the future. I Due to the accuracy of these static analyses, we determined to base our projection methodology for the 2000 estimate upon a similar extrapolation of the 1990 census figure. Adjustments were made to the projected I numbers based upon the variation found in the analyses between the projected 1990 figures and the actual 1990 figures. In this way we could make a "best guess" for the declines expected between the late-teen and I early-twenties groups and the 65-and-over groups. Estimates for the 04and 5-9 groups were made by applying the rate of change observed between the 1980 and 1990 data for these groups to the 1990 figure. I Obviously, this assumes that birth rates will continue to fall. Figure 5.4 shows the data for 1980,1990, and projections for 2000: both the static projection and and the adjusted projection, the latter being the figure we I will use throughout this document for planning purposes. Figure 5.5 illustrates the 1990 and 2000 data in tabular form.

1 The projected population of 3,423 for the year 2000 is smaller than the figure of 3,685 projected by the Berks County Planning Commission. The difference between our projection and the County projection is largely I due to the fact that, at the time of this writing, the County figure had yet to be adjusted in accordance with the 1990 census data. We feel that it is significant that the County agrees with our projection of a continuing I decline in the Borough population.

I Any meaningful population projection beyond 2000 is difficult. This is due to both the historic pattern of population change and the fact that Laureldale is a small community. When dealing with large populations, changes typically reflect regional and national trends, such as decreased family size or a shift in the economy ~1 from heavy manufacturing to service. The effects of smaller scale events, such as the closure of a single I v-5 I Fiuure 5.2 - STATIC ANALYSIS: 1970 - 1980

700 i i 1 Ii iI i ! ! 600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Oto4 5t09 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 75 over 75 AGE GROUP Fiqure 5.3 - STATICANALYSIS: 1980 - 1990

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 0 to 5 to 10 to 15to 20to 25 to 30 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 60 to 65 to 75 to 85 84 4 9 14 19 24 29 34 44 54 59 64 74 84 over AGE GROUP Fiaure 5.4 - POPULATION: 1990 & 2000 PROJECTIONS

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 0 to 5 to 10 to 15 to 20 to 25 to 30 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 60 to 65 to 75 to 85 & 4 9 14 19 24 29 34 44 54 59 64 74 84 over AGE GROUP

.. . I

business or the construction of a single residential development, are "swallowed up" by the effects of the I larger trends. However, in a small community like Laureldale, the local effects of the national and regional trends are, numerically, about the same as the effect of a local event. This means that the Borough may gain I in population even as the region declines - or vice versa.

I Figure 5.5 I I I I I I I I I ,TOTAL: 4. 47 3 423 I SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 and 1990. Projections by Systems Design Engineering, I Inc., 1994.

I Even so, projections beyond the year 2000 are a necessary part of this document. As noted earlier, we anticipate that the trend in the Borough will prove to be cyclical with the current declining trend turning around sometime between 2000 and 2010, when new families moving to the Borough will offset the decline I caused by out-migration and mortality. The increase will be slight, however, since these new families will be

I V-6 I smaller than those in 1960s and 1970's. This will be due both to the nationwide trend toward smaller families in general and the fact that the smaller homes most common in the Borough will be best suited to single-parent families and couples with few or no children. Increases between 2000 and 2020 are most likely to be between one and three percent per decade. For the purposes of this Plan, we have established a projection of 3,500 for 2010 and 3,600 for 2020.

Housing: Data Show Decreasinp Household Size The census data for households are indicators of family size and, indirectly, of affluence. As Figure 5.6 shows, the number of housing units has increased more rapidly than the number of residents in every municipality sho\vn, increasing even in those communities which, like Laureldale, decreased in population. This indicates that the size of households is decreasing. This trend is not just local, but has been noted at the county, state, and national levels as well. Smaller household size is attributed to families having fewer children and, in the case of Laureldale, to an aging population.

I Figure 5.6 )iOUSING UNITS I PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD: 1970.1980.1990 I Figure in parentheses is percent change in the number of units from the previous decade. Municipalities are listed according to 1990 persons per household, in descending order. I MUNICIPALITY 1970 1980 1990 Maidencreek Township 738 I3.22 862 (+76.8%) 12.76 1,259 (+46.7%) 12.80

I Ruscombrnanor Township 650 I3.05 91 9 (+47.4%) I2.77 1,163 (i26.6%) I2.76

Bern Township 1,323 I3.60 1,530 (+ 75.7%) I3.33 1,912 (i25.5%) I2.66

Alsace Township 1,008 13.01 1,243 (i23.3%) 12.78 1,377 (i70.8%) 12.63

BERKS COUNTY TOTAL 101,027 I2.93 119,937 12.61 134,482 I2.56 (+78.7%) (i72.7 %)

Ontelaunee Township 503 I 3.1 1 559 (i7 7.7%) 12.52 627 (42.2%) 12.50

Muhlenberg Township 4311 13.04 4,985 (40.5%) 12.61 5,159 (+3.5%) 12.39

Reading City 33,868 12.59 34,142 (+0.8%) 12.30 34,276 (+0.4%) 12.44

Laureldale Borough 1,57912.86 1,615 (+2.3%)/2.51 1,643 (+1.7%)12.31

Temple Borough 616 I2.71 632 (+2.6%) 12.35 708 (42.0%) 12.18

SOURCE: US. Bureau of the Census, 1970,1980, and 1990.

v-7 I We have already noted the lack of developable land in the Borough. This is reflected in the number of new I housing units created: only 36 new units between 1970 and 1980 and 28 between 1980 and 1990. New housing units created since the 1990 census are shown below by unit type for the Borough and nearby I municipalities. On the chart, "single family detached indicates a single house on its own lot, unattached to any other structure, and includes mobile home units. "SingIe family attached" homes are side-by-side singIe I family units sharing a party wall, including twin homes, row houses, and townhouses. "Apartment" shows the total of all dwelling units in multi-unit structures; this figure also includes new apartment units created by the conversion or adaptation of a pre-existing structure. "Destroyed' shows those units of all kinds I removed from the municipal housing stock. Note that a "condominium" is actually a form of ownership, not a type of structure. Condominium units are counted under "apartment," "single family attached," or I whatever structure type may be appropriate.

Figure 5.7 'I NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BY TYPE OF UNIT: 1990. 1991. 1992 I Municipalities are listed in alphabetic order. SINGLE-FAMILY MUNICIPALITY YEAR DETACHED ATTACHED APARTMENT DESTROYED Alsace Twp. 1990 12 I 1991 16 1992 10 Bern Twp. 1990 24 I 1991 17 1992 22 Laureldale Boro 1990 1 2 1 I 1991 2 2 2 1992 2 2 .. Maidencreek Twp. 1990 58 10 1991 73 48 6 I 1992 87 40 Muhlenberg Twp. 1990 57 19 1991 104 24 I 1992 123 41 Ontelaunee Twp. 1990 4 1991 8 1 I 1992 7 - Ruscombmanor Twp. 1990 16 1991 13 1992 17 I Temple Boro 1990 1991 10 I 1992 4 SOURCE: Berks County Planning Commission, 1993. I

I v-8 I The preceding data show that the trends observed in the decennial censuses have continued as expected I since the last census in 1990. The suburban townships of Maidencreek and Muhlenberg had, by far, the most new residential construction. The two boroughs saw only a negligible amount of new housing, as was the I case for most of the boroughs in the County.

A housing analysis must consider value in order to be complete. Comparisons over time need to compensate I for rising costs attributable to both inflation and changing lifestyles. Until recently, the dominant trend in construction, both nationally and locally, has been toward larger homes: very little new residential construction was designed as small "starter homes." While this is beginning to change, Laureldale is in a position to offer the smaller homes which are not being provided by new construction. Housing values, I shown in Figure 5.8, reflect quality and size, but most of all demand. The chart shows how housing values in the Borough compare with those in nearby communities and the County as a whole. Note that the data are I owner estimates, not actual sale prices or professional estimates. For this reason, our analysis must be general rather than specific.

I Figure 5.8 "

I MUNICIPALITY VALUE IN DOLLARS PROPORTION OF COUNTY MEDIAN Ruscombmanor Township 100,600 1.23 I Bern Township 98,000 1.20 Maidencreek Township 97,600 1.19 1 Ontelaunee Township 86,000 1.05 Alsace Township 85,000 1.04 Muhlenberg Township 82,900 1.01 I BERKS COUNTY MEDIAN 81,800 1 .oo Temple Borough 72,400 0.89 I Laureldale Borough 69,500 0.85 Reading City 37,700 0.46

I SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990.

I Berks County has a wide variety of housing types. Less expensive homes may be found both in urban areas, where dwellings and lots tend to be small, and in more remote rural places, where land costs are low. The ~I most expensive housing tends to be in the suburban communities, particularly those where large homes are common. Figure 5.9 shows the housing mix within each of the municipalities. On the chart, the "single family detached' designation indicates a single house on its own lot, unattached to any other structure. ~I "Single family attached" homes are side-by-side single family units sharing a party wall; the term includes I V-9 I twin homes, row houses, and townhouses. "Apartment"shows the total of all dwelling units in multi-unit I buildings. For our purposes, we have also included housing units described by the census as "other" as apartments. The number shown under "mobile homes" includes units in mobile home parks as well as I single units on individual lots. Note that a "condominium" is actually a form of ownership, not a type of structure. Most condominium units will be included under "apartment" or "single family attached," as I appropriate. Figure 5.9 I BOUSING UNITS BY TYPE: 1990 Municipalities are listed in alphabetic order. I SINGLE-FAMILY MOBILE MUNlClPALITY DETACHED ATTACHED APARTMENTS HOMES TOTAL Alsace Township 1,176 23 43 135 1,377 85.4% 1.7% 3.1% 9.8% I Bern Township 1,680 95 106 31 1,912 87.9% 5.0% 5.5% 1.6% Laureldale Borough 969 506 166 2 1,643 I 59.0~~ 30.8~~ 10.1 Yo 0.1 Yo Maidencreek Township 977 95 90 97 1,259 77.6% 7.6% 7.2% 7.7% I Muhlenberg Township 3,643 71 1 51 6 289 5,159 70.6% 13.8% 10.0% 5.6% Ontelaunee Township 491 24 33 79 627 78.3% 3.8% 5.3% 12.6% I Reading City 2,988 18,242 13,029 17 34,276 8.7% 53.2% 38.0% ~0.1% Ruscombmanor Township 1,080 6 50 27 1,163 I 92.9% 0.5% 4.3% 2.3% Temple Borough 307 144 255 2 708 I 43.4% 20.3% 36.0% 0.2% SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990.

I Data are also available for household income. This is a better indicator of affluence than housing value for two major reasons. First, there is less guesswork involved on the part of the individuals supplying the data. I Second, the choice of a home is based upon a number of factors, not solely income. Therefore, conclusions about lifestyle and affluence based upon housing value may be misleading. Like Figure 5.8, the "Proportion" I column on Figure 5.10 illustrates how incomes the Borough compare to nearby communities; this ranking is less prone to change than the dollar amounts. I I

I v-10 I I Figure 5.10 JNCOME AND POVERTY: 7990 * I NUMBER OF FAMILIES 1 PERCENTAGE BELOW MEDIAN PROPORTION OF MUNICIPALITY POVERTY LEVELFAMILY INCOME COUNTY MEDIAN I Bern Township 1,538I 2.3% 45,143 1.20 Maidencreek Township 985 I 7.1 % 40,930 1.08 I Muhlenberg Township 3,78313.2% 40,209 1.07 Ontelaunee Township 380 12.6% 39,861 1.06 I Ruscombrnanor Township 91 0 I 5.4% 38,200 1.01 BERKS COUNTY 92,04615.2% 37,755 1 .oo I Laureldale Borough 1,154 I 2.1% 37,679 1.oo Alsace Township 1,031 13.0% 37,217 0.99 Temple Borough 413 12.4% 34,550 0.92 I Reading City 19,343I 15.2% 27,277 0.72 I SOURCE: U.S. Bureau-of the Census, 1990. Poverty thresholds used by the Census Bureau vary according to the number of persons in the household, I and how many of those persons are children under the age of 18. For the 1990 census, the threshold for a single-person household was an annual income of $6,451. A family of four (two adults, two children) was I deemed to be impoverished if the annual household income was $12,575 or less. The data here provide an interesting observation: although Laureldale residents as a group are not particularly wealthy, the Borough I has the lowest proportion of families below poverty level of all the municipalities listed.

Education Level is Characteristic of an Older Pouulation I The level of education is an indicator of both the level of affluence and the type of employment dominant in an area. It also suggests the age of the residents: higher levels of formal education are typical of younger 1 populations. Today, the highest education levels are usually found in suburban communities, where modern office and professional centers tend to locate. Rural areas, where agriculture is still a major activity, and I areas with sigruficant industrial activity tend to have populations with less formal education. Figure 5.11 shows the percentage of residents who are high school and college graduates, with the communities ranked I according to the proportion of college graduates. As an older, industrial community, the data are not surprising. I I I v-11 I I Figure 5.11 I FORMAL EDUCATION LEVEL OF RESIDENTS: 1990 MUNICIPALITY % HIGH SCHOOL GRADS % COLLEGE GRADS I Ruscombmanor Township 70.7 17.7 Bern Township 67.5 15.4 BERKS COUNTY 70.0 15.1 I Muhlenberg Township 71.9 14.3 Maidencreek Township 67.4 13.4 I Alsace Township 67.5 12.1 Laureldale Borough 71.6 10.8 I Reading City 58.4 8.5 Temple Borough 66.7 7.9 I Ontelaunee Township 69.0 7.5 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990. I Although the Borough has a relatively low proportion of college graduates, only Muhlenberg Township has I a higher proportion of high school graduates, among the municipalities surveyed. This is consistent with the determination earlier in this chapter that the population is relatively old. In the post-war years, a high-school I or trade-school education was more than adequate for many jobs, especially for the industries dominant in the Borough at that time.

1 Summarv and Planning Implications * Historically, the population of Laureldale peaked in 1970, when there were 4219 residents. Since I then, the population has declined. The 1990 census reported 3,726 residents.

I * Changes in population may be anticipated if one understands the factors which cause such change: the condition of the local economy, the age distribution, the style and quality of the housing stock, and i the availability of developable land are the most important.

* At present, the age of the residents, the type of housing, and the lack of developable land all suggest I that the Borough population will continue to decline, at least over the short term.

I * A high proportion of elderly residents, changing tastes in housing style, and the national trend toward smaller household size - along with the generally stable local economy - indicate that the Borough I population is likely to grow in the long term, but at a slower rate than in the 1940 - 1970 interval.

I v-12 I I

I * Population projections: 2000 - 3,423 2010 - 3,500 I 2020 - 3,600

* Static analysis of the 1970 - 1990 census data reveals that there has been some out-migration and I almost no iu-migration. This type of analysis projects the various age group data from a census forward ten years, assuming no deaths, no births, and no migration: hence the term "static." These I projected data are then compared with the actual figures from the following census. The difference between the projected data and the actual data shows whether a specific age group is moving into or I out of the community. Since the static analysis projections were so close to actual figures (with some minor, expected modifications) method was used to develop the 2000 population projection. I this * Average household size is decreasing as families have fewer children and single-person households I become more common. This trend has been observed at the county, state, and national level.

* The borough has seen little new residential construction in recent years. This is due mostly to the lack I of developable land and not any weakness in the local housing market. This conclusion is based on the fact that Muhlenberg Township, which completely surrounds the Borough, has had a considerable I amount of new construction.

I * Housing costs in the Borough are, on average, lower than in most of the neighboring communities. Since housing quality is generally good, the cost is a result of both dwellings and lots being smaller I than in the more expensive areas. In contrast to the townships, Laureldale has a higher proportion of attached homes (Le., twins and row homes) and apartments.

I * Average household income is nearly identical to the County median. Of all the municipalities surveyed in this chapter, Laureldale has the lowest proportion of families living below the poverty I level: 2.1%).

I * The formal education level of the residents is characteristic of an older population. The percentage of high school graduates among Borough residents is higher than most of the surrounding municipalities I and is slightly above the Berks County average. However, the proportion of college graduates is low. I

I V-13 I I I I I Introduction In this chapter we will examine employers within and near the Borough; the industries they represent; the I employment, occupation, and income of Borough residents; and the extent of unemployment. We will also examine the pattern of Borough revenues and expenditures for the past five years. The information I provided here will provide part of the foundation for the economic development plan presented in Chapter Eleven. We will begin by establishing which industries are in operation in the Borough and nearby. This I portion of the chapter will include information on specific employers and the number of people who work there. In this way, we can establish the local job pool the number and types of jobs available. This I information will be contrasted with employment statistics for Borough residents from the 1990 Census. In this way, it will be possible to establish the extent to which the local economy is tied to the regional economy. It may also be possible to determine whether or not residents have skills which are under-utilized by local I industry. This would suggest an asset to be stressed if the Borough should ever aggressively market itself as a location for industry. The final portion of this chapter will examine Borough revenue and expenditures for I the period between 1989 and 1993. This information will idenhfy trends both in revenue received from I various sources and expenditures made to provide specific services. Classification of Industrv I Before we begin, it will be helpful to establish what we mean by "industry." For our purposes, an industry is any activity which generates income for those who are engaged in it. There is a clear distinction between I "industry" and "occupation." Industries are defined by their product; occupations are the specific tasks involved: A single industrial activity,-particularlya large one, will have individuals of many occupations. For example, a steel plant (a single industry) will be the place of employment for executives, clerical staff, I skilled laborers, maintenance workers, and other occupations.

I The Census Bureau has defined about a dozen broad industrial categories along with a few sub-categories. These categories are used to classify the labor and employment statistics which are gathered as part of the I general population data at the decennial census. The U.S.Department of Commerce has created the far more detailed SIC Etandard Industrial Classification) code system. Well over a thousand different industrial I activities have been assigned a four-digit code as an efficient way of giving a reasonably precise description of a particular firm's activity. The first two digits establish a broad category of activity while the third and I VI-1 I I I fourth digits provide increasing levels of detail. Take for example the SIC code “2024.” The initial “20” I indicates a food processing industry. Producers of dairy products have “2as the third digit; the “4tell us that the firm produces ice cream. General information on the individual businesses inventoried for this I chapter (including their SIC designations) is provided as an appendix to this Plan.’ Since the SIC designation is so precise, we can match Census categories with a set of SIC codes. The industrial categories used by the I Census and the first two digits of the corresponding SIC numbers are shown in Figure 6.8, at the end of this chapter. Since there are fewer Census designations than SIC codes, this chapter will use the Census designations for analytical purpose in order to reduce the complexity of the analyses. The specific activities I included in most nf these categories are obvious; for further description, see Figure 6.8.

I Borough Industrv Although originally formed as a residential suburb, Laureldale became the home of major industry when the I Rosedale Knitting Company began operation in 1914. By 1929, this company had 3,000 employees. While no Borough business operates at this scale today, there are still several operations in town which employ a I significant number of people.2 Figure 6.1 lists operations wholly or partially within the Borough limits which have twenty or more employees.

I Together, these entities provide 1,185 jobs within the Borough. The addition of smaller businesses not shown here brings the total number of jobs available to about 1,250. As this chart shows, manufacturing is still the I most important economic activity within the Borough. Five of the eight operations shown are manufacturers, accounting for 65% of the jobs shown. The nursing home and the school district, both considered I “professional services,” account for most of the rest. Only one retail operation is shown. In addition to what is listed, there are a number of small shops and personal service businesses as well as a few one- and two- man industries. These have not been shown here in the interest of brevity. They provide the balance of the I! employment opportunity in the Borough.

I I ‘I

~~~ I I Some firms, especially manufacturing operations, include activities which require more than one SIC designation. Typically, these different designations will all fall within the same two-digit category. Where this is not I the case, the business has been classified according to their primary product or activity. 2 Data on employment and industry used throughout this chapter is based on information from Dalton’s BusinessAndustrv, I993/94, Dun’s Regional Business Directorv / 1994, and Harris Publishing’s 1994 Pennsvlvania Industrial Directorv. When cited as sources, these publications will be referred to as “Dalton’s,” “Dun’s,” and “Hamis,” I respectively. The information from these sources has been supplemented, modified, or corrected where needed in accordance with field verification by Systems Design Engineering, Inc., as advised by the Borough of Laureldale. I VI-2 I Figure 6.1 PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS WITHIN THE BOROUGH

Employers are listed alphabetically.

Name No.EmDloved TvDe of lndustrv Clauser Office Equipment 30 Retail sale of off ice supplies Empire Steel Castings 21 5 Steel foundry Exide Corporation 200 ** Batteries for small engines Leader Nursing & Rehabilitation Center 175 Nursing home Muhlenberg School District 200 Public school system Reading Sanitary Wiper / Oscar Daniels 22 Cloth & paper cleaning prods. Reitech Corporation 28 Manufacture of ink Yuasa-Exide, Inc. 315 Batteries for small engines

Located adjacent to Borough. ** At Laureldale location onlv. SOURCE: Dalton's, Dun's. Harris: all 1994.

Definition of the Local Emulovment Pool Obviously, we cannot assume that all employed Borough residents work in the Borough - especially since the 1,250 jobs in the Borough are not sufficient for the 1,818 Borough residents who hold a job? the Borough is a net exporter of workers. By determining where residents are likely to work, we can see how well the skills and existing employment of the residents match the jobs available in the immediate area. A poor match will indicate that the Borough population is likely to decline further, as residents will need to leave in order to find employment. A good match suggests long-term stability and potential growth.

We have defined the pool as being comprised of three elements: (1) all business and industry in the Borough, (2) businesses and industries outside the Borough but still in the 19605 ZIP code with more than 100 employees, and (3) businesses with other ZIP codes beginning 196 with more than 500 employees. This I method reflects the fact that large employers tend to draw their employees from a larger geographic area than small employers. Using this selection process, we have identified sixty-four local employers providing I a total of more than 30,000 jobs. As noted in the introductory section of this chapter, these businesses are listed and described in the Appendix. Figure 6.2 shows the distribution of these jobs by industry. For this I chart and all similar charts within this chapter, the industries will be listed according to the numeric order of their SIC designation. Although covering a much broader geographic area with many more businesses, the

~ ~ ~~~ 3 1990 Censur; figure: includes residents over the age of sixteen.

VI-3 B

figure shows that the dominance of manufacturing and professional services found within the Borough is I also characteristic for the area identified as the employment pool. I Figure 6.2 I JOB AVAILABILITY IN LAURELDALE AREA BY INDUSTRY. 1994 # of MEDIAN # JOBS INDUSTRY FIRMS of EMPLOYEES # (% of TOTAL) I Ag ricuI tu re. Forestry, Fisheries 0 0 0 (0.0%) Mining 0 0 0 (0.0%) I Construction 3 11 186 (0.6%) Manufacturing: Non-Durable Goods 20 145 4,524 (1 5.0%) Manufacturing: Durable Goods 13 400 12,227 (40.5%) Transportation 2 700* 1,400 (4.6%) Communications & Utilities 2 650* 1,300 (4.3%) I Trade: Wholesale 4 108 341 (1.19'0) Trade: Retail 9 100 1,052 (3.5%) I Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 2 800* 1,600 (5.3%) Personal Services 1 n/a 5 (<0.1%) I Business & Repair Services 2 102* 203 (0.7%) Entertainment & Recreation 0. 0. 0 (0.0%) I Professional Services: Health Care 3 1,182 4,057 (1 3.4%) Professional Services: Education 2 800' 1,600 (5.3%) Professional Services: Other 0 0 0 (0.0%) I Public Administration 1 nla 1.700 C5.6YoI

TOTAL 64 184 30,195 (1 00.0%) ,II Mean fiaure. not median. SOURCE: Dalton's, Dun's, and Harris; 1994. ~B ~I Emulowent Patterns of Borouvh Residents According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 1,818 Borough residents over the age of sixteen were employed: equal to 78% of the 2,330 residents between the ages of 16 and 65. For-profit industries employ 80.3% of Borough I residents, 7.3% are government employees, and 4.2% are self-employed. Figure 6.3 shows employment distribution by industry and compares it with the industrial distribution for the employment pool. Note that I the percentages in the column on the far right of this chart are from Figure 6.2. 'A "perfect match" is not expected, since the "# Workers" column shows all employed residents while the "% of Jobs..." column is based

I VI-4 I 1 upon a sample which excludes many small-scale employers. Industries which are characterized by a I significant proportion of small firms are likely to show a discrepancy. Such industries include agriculture, I construction, retail trade, finance/insurance/real estate, and personal services. Figure 6.3 EMPLOYMENT OF LAURELDALE RESIDENTS. 1990

I % of JOBS IN INDUSTRY #WORKERS EMPLOYMENT POOL I Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries 12 (0.7%) 0.0% Mining 0 (0.0%) 0.0% Construction 100 (5.5%) 0.6% I Manufacturing: Non-Durable Goods 172 (9.5%) 15.0% Manufacturing: Durable Goods 387 (21.3%) 40.5% I Transportation 40 (2.2%) 4.6% Communications & Jtilities 56 (3.1%) 4.3% I Trade: Wholesale 139 (7.7%) 1.1% Trade: Retail 259 (14.3%) 3.5% Finance, Insurance Real Estate 182 (10.0%) 5.3% Personal Services 42 (2.3%) <0.1 Yo Business & Repair Services 55 (3.0%) 0.7% Entertainment & Recreation 17 (0.9%) 0.0% Professional Services: Health Care 162 (9.2%) 13.4% I Professional Services: Education 83 (4.8%) 5.3% Professional Services: Other 62 (3.4%) 0.0% I Public Administration 45 (2.5%) 5.6% I TOTAL 1,818 SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990;Dalton's. Dun's, and Harris, 1994. I The chart highlights the importance of manufacturing in the local economy: a continuation of the traditional, I historic pattern of local employment. Total manufacturing (durable plus non-durable) provides over half of the jobs in the employment pool; however, less than a third of the employed Borough residents are in this 1 largest employers of Borough residents - it suggests that the pattern of employment is more diversified than I I the regional opportunities would suggest. If we consider broader categories - total manufacturing, total

I VI-5 I I trade, and total professional services - we can see that these account for almost seventy percent of the jobs I held by Borough residents.

I The high percentage of retail trade workers is expected, considering the major shopping areas in Muhlenberg Township and the greater Reading area generally. The prominence of finance, insurance, and real estate is I more surprising. As we noted earlier, the discrepancy between the percentage of workers from the Borough and the share of jobs available from the employment pool is as anticipated. What makes it surprising is that this industry is characterized by younger, higher-income workers. While these individuals may move from I the Borough as their level of affluence rises, there is still the opportunity for economic stability and growth. The challenge for the Borough is to provide a level of services which will entice families to stay, beyond the I point where they ccwld afford to move elsewhere.

I Finally, a significant number of Borough residents are employed in the provision of professional services; over half of these are in the health care professions. However, the percentage of health care workers is not as I high as what could be expected from the number of jobs available in this field.

Several planning-related issues are apparent here. First, the overall pattern of Borough employment is 1 generally similar to the jobs locally available. Second, there is more diversity than might be expected, indicating less reliance on a single employer or industry, economic stability in the long term, and potential I . for growth. Finally, there is the suggestion that there are younger workers with significant earnings potential who may contribute to the future of the Borough, provided that the Borough has the.services and amenities I they desire.

1 Figures on employment change by industry indicate that any optimism should be expressed with some caution. The State uses industrial categories which are substantially similar to those used by the Census Bureau. Figure 6.4 shows change in employment by industrial category observed during the one-year period 1 between September 1992 and September 1993. The proportion of Borough residents so employed is also provided. The chart is arranged to highlight which industries are experiencing growth and to show how I many Borough residents are employed in those industries. Figures are provided only for non-agricultural I employment, so the total of the percentages in the column on the right is less than 100%. 1 I

I VI-6 I I Figure 6.4 I CHANGE IN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY: SEPTEMBER 1992 - SEPTEMBER 1993 d Industrial classifications are listed in order of growth during this period. County employment figures are in thousands. B % OF WORKERS COUNTY EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRY: INDUSTRY SEPT.92 SEPT.93 % CHANGE COUNTYIBORO I Transportation 3.1 3.3 + 6.5% 1.9% I ,2.2% Business, Repair, and Personal Services 11.6 12.3 + 6.0% 7.2701 5.3% I Professional Services (other than education and health care) 8.0 8.4 + 5.0% 4.9%1 3.4% I Professional Svcs: Education 8.7 9.1 + 4.6% 5.3% I4.8% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 9.0 9.2 + 2.2% 5.4% I 10.0% Trade: Retail 27.3 27.7 + 1.5% 16.3% I 14.3% I Public Administration 9.8 9.9 + 1.0% 5.ayo1 2.5%

I Professional Svcs: Health Care 10.8 10.8 6.3%1 9.2% Communications, Utilities 3.1 3.1 1.8%1 3.1% I Entertainment, Recreation 2.2 2.2 1.3% I 0.9% I Manufacturing: Durable 27.1 26.4 - 2.6% 15.5% I21.3% Construction & Mining 6.7 6.5 - 3.0% 3.8% i 5.5% Manufacturing: Non-Durable 16.9 16.1 - 4.7% 9.4%/ 9.5% B .Trade: Wholesale 7.0 6.6 - 5.7% 3.9%1 7.7% I TOTAL 151.3 151.6 + 0.2% SOURCE: Civilian Labor Force Data, Pennsylvania Dept. of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Research I and Statistics, December 3, 1993. In contrast with the regional employment figures used earlier, we can see that the County has greater ~I diversification of employment. Retail trade and durable manufacturing are the two most important industries in both the County and the Borough. Figure 6.4 shows us that the retail industry is slowly ID expandint while manufacturing is declining. In total, 42.5% of Borough workers are employed in expanding industries while 44.0% are in declining industries. In contrast, expanding industries employ 46.8% of the County workers while 32.6% are in declining industries. Note that all services, except for health ~B care, are growing; in each case (except health care again), these industries employ a smaller proportion of

The use of the terms "expanding"and "declining" are used here to describe the dominance of a particular ~B industrial activity within the local economy. It is not meant as a commentary upon the strength or fiscal integrity of any specific business. I VI-7 I I Borough residents in comparison with County residents. The Boroughs third most important employer, I finance/insurance/ real estate, is also expanding.

I So what does this mean to the Borough? Considering the enormous number of manufacturing jobs nearby, the dominance of industry as an employer is not surprising. However, if the local economy continues to rely I so strongly upon a declining sector of the economy, the potential for future growth in the Borough is limited. In any sort of marketing effort, the Borough should look to those industrial sectors which are expanding, I services and retail trade most prominently. Occupation of Borough Residents I The Census provides data on the occupation of residents as well as industry. This is a better indicator of both income and potential income. Figure 6.5 shows information on occupations from the 1990 U.S. Census for I both the Borough and the County.

Figure 6.5 I OCCUPATIONS OF EMPLOYED RESIDENTS: 1990

I I I I I I I

VI-8 Knowing the prominence of manufacturing and retail trade in the local economy, the dominant occupations - clerical, sales, skilled and unskilled laborers - are what we would expect. Note that the Borough percentages for technical, sales, and administrative occupations (the first major category) are nearly the same as those for the County. In contrast, the second major category -which consists of occupations found almost exclusively in manufacturing - is much more prominent in the Borough than in the County.

Income and Poverty Chapter Five has already touched on the topics of income and poverty. As described more hlly in that 5 chapter, the median family income reported for the Borough in the 1990 Census was $37,679, nearly ' identical to the County median. Only 2.1% of Borough families are living below the poverty level. This is the lowest proportion of any community in the region, one of the lowest in the County, and well below the County's overall figure of 5.2%.

Here, we will consider income in a bit more detail, examining household rather than familv income. The distinction is subtle: a "family" is a group of persons having some sort of legal or blood relationship who comprise a housekeeping unit. In contrast, a "household includes families, but the term also includes single I persons living alone and unrelated persons who live together to share housing costs. Neither of these situations are considered to be families, but they are households. Because of the inclusion of single person households, figures for household income are typically lower than family income, since many families have two (or more) wage-earners. In Laureldale, the median household income in 1989 was $31,250: somewhat less than the median familv income of $37,679 for the same year.

Figure 6.6 shows the number of Borough households within different income ranges. Note that the graph has two "peaks." The first, at the $10,000 to $20,000 interval, is probably due to single person households where the individuaI is either retired or is employed in some type of entry-level position. The 1990 Census shows 409 single-person households in the Borough, indicating that this is a reasonable assumption. The second peak, at the !M0,000 to $50,000 interval, is probably the effect of two-income households. If the first peak includes mostly retired persons, the "peaks" may merge over time as incomes rise, families form, and I the homes occupied by single older persons become available for families.

I Unemulovment Data on unemployment are kept by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. Detailed I information concerning these data are released at regular intervals. No figures are available for Boroughs or I Townships: the Coimty is the smallest civil unit for which information is provided. In addition to State, ' Figures reported for the 1989 calendar year.

VI-9 Fisure 6.6 - HOUSEHOLD INCOME: 7989

\ 280 \

240

220

200 i

180

160

140 120 \ 100

80

60 40 \ 20 \ 1 0 <10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-75 75-100 100-125125-150 >150

Thousands of Dollars I County, and MSA analyses, the Department examines employment by industry. In this section, we will I consider how Berks County compares to the State, other metropolitan areas in the State, and surrounding counties. We will also examine changes in employment by industry and consider the implications of those I changes for the Borough.

Figure 6.7 I LABOR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT: OCTOBER 1993 Areas are shown in ascending order of unemployment. Figures for total labor force are in thousands. County names are shown in upper and lower case letters; metropolitan areas (MA's) and the State are shown in all I capitals. Counties included in metropolitan areas are in accordance with the most recent definition by the federal Office of Management and Budget.

I TOTAL CIVILIAN COUNTY / METROPOLITAN AREA LABOR FORCE % UNEMPLOYED I Lancaster County / LANCASTER MA 238.8 4.1 % Chester County 208.9 4.2% HARRISBURG-LEBANON-CARLISLE MA 345.9 4.7% I Montgomery County 378.4 5.0% Lebanon County 65.9 5.1% I Berks County / READING MA 181.9 5.4% Lehigh County 151.9 6.3% I ALLENTOWN-BETHLEHEM-EASTON MA 302.7 6.6% PENNSYLVANIA 6,053.0 6.6% I PHllADELPHlA MA 1,877.8 6.8% SCRANTON-WILKES BARRE-HAZLETON MA 328.7 8.0% I Schuylkill County 75.9 8.1% SOURCE: Civilian Labor Force Data, Pennsylvania Dept. of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Research and I Statistics, December 3, 1993. Of the areas tallied, Berks County is very nearly the median. The pattern is clear: south-central and south- I eastern Pennsylvania (with the exception of the City of Philadelphia) have the lowest levels of unemployment in the state, with the level rising as one travels north and west. At this time, national unemployment was 6.39'0, so Berks County had a lower unemployment rate than both the state and the I nation. These data suggest a reviving local economy: average annual unemployment had been rising since 1989, when Berks County unemployment was only 3.9%. By 1992, the figure was 7.0%. If the 1993 figures I are the beginning of a trend, then the 5.4% reported here is heartening. I

1 VI-10 I I

Municipal Finances I Analysis of the financial resources and needs of a community entails scrutiny of the amount of revenue generated for the Borough from various sources as well as trends in spending. The analysis is intended to I reveal areas of weakness, areas of strength, local priorities, and which actions recommended in other parts of this Plan are most feasible from a fiscal perspective. I Every municipalit!. in Pennsylvania is required to prepare an annual budget and to develop an annual report. Information for this section has been taken from the Annual Audit and Financial Reports delivered I by the Borough to the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs for the years 1989 through 1993. The analysis of these data focuses upon changes within the different types of revenue, the various categories of I spending, and the implications of these changes in regard to the future resources of Laureldale.

I At first glance, the data in this chapter may appear inconsistent with the data in the annual reports. This is due to the fact that, for the purposes of this Plan, we will be considering the uctiiul income derived by the II Borough during each calendar year from the sources described. In this way, funds which have been carried over from the preceding year and funds which have been transferred from other municipal accounts are I excluded.

Sources of Revenue I Laureldale Borough derives income from a number of sources. The Generul Fund is the largest for both revenue and spending. Revenue sources for the General Fund include a variety of taxes, fees for services and 1 permits, fines and penalties, revenue contributed by the state and federal government, miscellaneous donations, and interest. The amount collected from each source since 1989 is shown in Figure 6.8. Note that I there are two tax categories. Act 511 taxes are municipal taxes authorized by the State through that Act. The real estate tax is authorized separately and is shown separately. In 1989 and 1990, the real estate tax rate was 19 mills: it rose to 23 mills for 1991 and 1992, and in 1993 the rate was 26 mills. Beginning in 1990, tax I revenue surpassed the Sewer Fund as the Boroughs principal source of income.

I TAXES Six different types of tax are collected by the Borough. Five of them have been levied under Pennsylvania Act 511, the Local Tax Enabling Act, which empowers municipalities to collect a per ~I capita tax, an earned income tax, a real estate transfer tax, an occupation privilege tax, a mercantile (or "business privilege") tax, an admission tax, and a mechanical device tax. Laureldale collects revenue I from all of these, except the last two. These.revenuesources are described below in detail. 1 1 mill = 1 dollar per 1,000 dollars of assessed property value 1 VI- 11 I I The Famed Income Tax (sometimes called the EIT or "Wage Tax") is a one percent tax on the I grow wage earned by Borough residents, regardless of the location of their place of employment. This tax accounts for over three-quarters of the revenue collected by all Act 511 I taxes. Half of the amount collected goes to the Muhlenberg School District. I The Per Capita Tax is levied against all Borough residents between the ages of 18 and 65. For the first three years shown, the rate was five dollars per person; in 1992, ten dollars per person wert collected. For all years shown, discounts were given as an incentive for early payment, so I the miount of revenue is not an even multiple of these amounts. The Borough retains all funds I collected for the per capita tax. The Real Estate Transfer Tax is collected whenever real estate changes hands. The rate of I taxa tion is one percent of the sale price of the property, half of which goes to Berks County. The amount of income received from this source is obviously related to the health of the local I real estate market. Nevertheless, the amount collected here has remained remarkably consistent over the period shown here and contributes between eight and nine percent of all I revenue generated by Act 511 taxes. The Mercantile Tax is levied upon for-profit industrial and commercial enterprises. The rate I varies, depending upon the type of business. Revenue is collected by the School District, with I half of the total amount passed on to the Borough. The Occupational Privilege Tax is levied upon all individuals who work in the Township, I regardless of their place of residence. The rate is ten dollars per person, collected annually, half of which is passed on to the school District.

I In addition tothese taxes, Borough property owners pay taxes directly to Berks County and the I Muhlenberg School District. SERVICE CHARGES: This category includes fees charged by the Borough for various administrative I services: the lion's share of this revenue is from the fee collected by the Borough for trash collection and disposal. I INTER-GOVERNMENTTRANSFERS: Grants and payments from the state government comprise this category. These include the Public Utility Realty Tax, fees from taxes on alcoholic beverages, and fees I generated by the Foreign Casualty Insurance Premium Tax; this last is by far the largest. Payments

I VI-12 I I from the State Liquid Fuels Highway Aid Fund are not counted here since they are not part of the I General Fund but are tallied separately. In past years, this category would have included federal revenue sharing money. The Borough received no federal funds in any of the years shown. The small I amounts shown for this type of revenue on Figure 6.8 represent interest which was generated from bank accouii ts which contained funds originally disbursed under federal revenue sharing. In 1990, I the federal revenue sharing account was closed, and the funds therein, amounting to $15,015, were assigned to the Sewer Fund. Since this was an inter-fund transfer, this amount does not show up as I revenue for the Sewer Fund in that year. FINES AND FORFEITS: Fines are collected as penalties for minor infractions of the law and for I violations of Borough ordinances or other regulations. In contrast, forfeits (fees) are levied in order to help cover administrative and service costs associated with some specific activity. For example, the I Borough may collect a fee for the review of subdivision and land development plans, which must be submitted whenever property is developed for non-residential use or a tract of land is divided into smaller lots. Fines and fees are different from service charges. Service charges are directly related to operating costs and are intended to pay for the entire operation cost of the service being provided. Fines are a penalty, so the amount is simply punitive, unrelated to either administrative costs or service delivery. Fees are usually some token amount to help defray municipal costs, but do not usually cover such costs completely. Also, service charges are fairly predictable, while fines and fees depend upon the actions of individual residents and may vary from year to year. Even so, this category has remained fairly consistent from year to year, varying only a few thousand dollars and contributing about 1?4% of all revenue to the municipal coffers annually.

LICENSES AND PERMITS: In some ways, these revenue sources are similar to fees. The only real difference is that this particular type of fee is paid in exchange for municipal permission to perform some activitv. Most of this revenue is derived from building permits. The amount varies widely from year to year, but contributes only a small percentage to the total Borough revenue.

INTEREST: This revenue is generated by funds deposited by the Borough into interest-bearing bank accounts. Although the balance may fluctuate significantly over the course of a year, the iriterest earned typically accounts for between 1%and 1H% of the Boroughs revenue.

MISCELLANEOUS As shown, this category of revenue contributes a negligible amount to the Borough coffers. This includes miscellaneous rents paid to the Borough and pfts.

VI - 13 I The General Fund is the largest and most active of the municipal funds. There are a few other, smaller I accounts which are kept separate from the General Fund, usually because the money deposited therein must be used for some special purpose. These funds and the income received by each are also shown on Figure I 6.8.

The Sewer Fziiid contains revenue generated from fees charged for the provision of public sewerage. I Although the Borough neither owns nor operates any treatment facility, it does own and maintain the sewer lines within the Borough limits, and it represents the residents in agreements with the City of Reading, which I provides the treatment service. Treatment charges are paid to the City by the Borough, rather than by I residents as individuals. Liquid Fuels, more properly known as the State Liquid Fuels Highway Aid Fund, are monies contributed by I the State to assist in payment of costs for road maintenance. Payments are based upon the length of public roadway in the Borough and come from the state tax on gasoline, heating oil, and other liquid fuels. This I fund has consistently accounted for 4% to 435% of total Borough revenue. Federal Revenue Slmriizg were undesignated funds, and, while they were available, municipalities often used I them to help pay for large-scale projects. No federal monies have been paid out under this program for some years; it ceased to be a source of municipal revenue well before 1989. However, the account was maintained I for a while, and funds in that account bore interest. This interest is the sole source of funds in this category for the years shown. During 1990, all funds rema'ining in this account, slightly over $15,000, were transferred I to the Sewer Fund. This amount is not reflected in the Sewer Fund revenue for this year since it was an inter- fund transfer and not new revenue. I Exuenditures For the purpose of analysis, municipal expenditures have been broken down in a manner similar to the I revenue section. The General Fund has seven categories, and the other funds are also described. These are all shown on Figure 6.9. Note that two different percentage figures are shown for the General Fund sub- I categories. The one directly under the dollar amount represents the proportion of General Fund revenue; the figure to the right shows the proportion of all municipal revenue. The categories are the same as those used I in the Annual Audit and Financial Report and are listed in decreasing order of expenditure as of 1993. I GENERAL FUND - PUBLIC WORKS, ROADS The local level of government was originally established for the purpose of maintaining and patrolling local roads. Road maintenance is one of the most important functions of local governments even today, so it is appropriate that road-related expenses are the largest I single category of expenditure. This figure includes all repair and maintenance, including snow and leaf I VI- 14 I Figure 6.8 MUNICIPAL REVENUE: 1989 - 1993

This chart shows new revenue only. Transfers among municipal funds and amounts carried over from preceding years have been excluded.

I 1989 \/ 1990 \I 1991 \/ 1 9 92 \I 1993 \ GENERAL FUND TOTAL: $636,265 $717,611 $743,520 58.5% 62.1 yo 61 .l Yo ACT 511 TAXES: $256,117 $259,626 $272,533 22.1 Yo 21.3% 23.4% Earned Income Tax $198,878 $200,348 $200,390 $204,485 Per Capita Tax $ 15,666 $ 13,444 $ 12,951 $ 25,473 ~~~ ~ Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 22,697 $ 22,529 $ 22,754 $ 22,190 Mercantile lax $ 13,132 $ 12,758 $ 17,388 $ 14,168 Occupational Privilege Tax !ii 4,832 $ 7,011 $ 6,143 $ 6,217 REAL ESTATE TAX: ** $142,622 $146,822 $ 174,477 $ 175,017 13.1% 12.7% 14.3% 15.0% SERVICE CHARGES: $169,226 $233.212 $212.605 $201,153 15.6% 20.2% 17.5% 17.2% INTER-GOVERNMENTAL: $ 31,014 $ 25,992 $ 33,831 $ 34,935 I 2.9% 2.2% 2.8% 3.0% LICENSES & PERMITS: I $ 7,499 $ 21,023 $ 26,677 $ 11,075 I 0.7% I 1.8% I I 2.2% I I 0.9% FINES & FORFEITS: 1.5% 1.2% 1.6% INTEREST: $ 17,546 $ 15,171 $ 20,700 $ 9,301 1.6% 1.3% 1.7% 0.8% MISCELLANEOUS: $ 910 $ 1,851 $ 959 $ 496 <0.1 Yo 0.2% 0.1 Yo <0.1% SEWER FUND: $404,721 $389,930 $427,907 $395,216 $391,063 37.2% 33.7% 35.1% 33.9% 32.5% LIQUID FUELS: t $ 46,531 $ 48,269 $ 46,138 $ 48,797 tt$ 81,763 4.3% 4.2% 3.8% 4.2% 6.8% FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING: * $ 774 $ 537 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 <0.1% I <0.1% I 0.0% I 0.0% 0.0% TOTAL BOROUGH REVENUE: $1,088,291 $1,156,347 $1,217,565 $1,I 67,132 $1,204,730

* Per capita tax was $5.00 for 1989, 1990, and 1991; $1 0.00 for 1992 and 1993 ** Real estate tax was 19 mills in 1989 and 1990; 23 mills in 1991, 1992, and 1993. t Includes interest on sums carried over from preceding years. tt Includes $30,000 state grant. * No new federal revenue sharing funds were received during any of the years shown.' The amounts shown'are interest on sums remaining in this fund from previous years. During 1990, all monies remaining in this account ($15,015) were transferred to the Sewer Fund. As an intra-municipal transfer, this amount is not reflected in the amount shown for Sewer Fund revenue in 1990. removal for both State and Borough roads. In the years shown, no public streets were constructed at municipal expense. Money from the State Liquid Fuels Highway Aid Fund is an important element in supporting the maintenance of the local road system. This is maintained as a separate fund and is discussed I in greater detail below.

GENERAL FUND - PUBLIC SAFETY: In Pennsylvania, the local level of government has the mandate to promote the "health, safety, and general welfare" of the populace. With this in mind, it is entirely fitting that this area of expenditure is nearly as large as that for roads. In every year shown, about one-quarter of all I General Fund expenditures are made in the area of Public Safety. Expenditures to provide police protection account for about eighty percent of these expenditures. This represents both the costs associated with the Borough Police Department and contributions to the Muhlenberg Police Department for their assistance. Most of the remaining twenty percent is contributed to the Fire Department. Other, minor expenditures included here are contributions to ambulance and rescue services and spending on municipal planning and planning documents.

I GENERAL FUND - PUBLIC WORKS, SANITATION: Laureldale contracts for trash removal on behalf of its residents. As shown on the chart, this is a major expenditure for the Township. As landfill space becomes I increasingly scarce, many communities find that their costs for solid waste disposal are skyrocketing. Laureldale has been fortunate in that the competition in the disposal industry has controlled their costs. I Note that the cost here actually dropped from 1991 to 1992, due to the appointment of a new hauler.

GENERAL FUND - GENERAL GOVERNMENT: This category includes administrative costs such as personnel salaries and benefits, stipends for municipal officials, office expenses and other costs associated with the Municipal Building, costs of keeping and maintaining files and records, legal fees, and tax collection costs. The jump in spending between 1991 and 1992 is due to increased legal expenses.

GENERAL FUND :MISCELLANEOUS: Miscellaneous costs consist of insurance premiums and various employee-related costs such as retirement fund contributions, workmen's compensation contributions, and I unemployment compensation.

I GENERAL FUND - CULTURE & RECREATION This category notes expenditures for the care of the Borough parks and playgrounds and for the municipal contribution to the Muhlenberg Community Library, I which, in spite of its name, is located within the Borough.

GENERAL FUND - HEALTH &WELFARE: Laureldale does not make expenditures for health in the form I of any public welfare program. Rather, the costs in this category include expenses related to maintaining a I VI - 15 I Figure 6.9 MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES: 1989 - 1993

This chart shows outside expenditures only. Transfers to other municipal funds are excluded. Two percentage figures are shown under General Fund categories. The first represents the proportion of General Fund expenditures, the second shows proportion of total municipal expenditures.

89 1990 \I 1991 1992 \I 1993 \

%ge Gen’l Total%ge- 1 %geGen’l- I Total%ge- I Fund Fund GENERAL FUND: $753,994 $820,207 $874,897 60.0% 65.0% 61 .O% Public Safety: $ 158,179 $178,814 $223,858 22.6% 14.7% 21.8% 14.2% 25.6% 15.6% Public Works, $ 155,949 $ 199,053 $ 209,319 14.6% Roads: . 22.3% 14.9% 24.3% 15.8% 23.9% Public Works, $ 162,129 $164,429 $ 182.320 Sanitation: 23.2% 15.1% I 20.0% 13.0% 20.8% 12.7% Miscellaneous: $ 110,902 I $119,199 $131,893 15.9% 5.5% 14.5% 9.4% 15.1% 9.2% General Government: $ 102,547 $143,995 $115,021 14.7% 9.1% 17.6% 11.4% 13.2% 8.0% Culture & Recreation: $ 7,756 $ 11,053 $ 10,501 1.1% 0.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.2% 0.7% Health & Welfare: I $ 2,228 $ 3,664 $ 1,985 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% , 0.2% 0.1% SEWER FUND: $41 5,141 $441,773 $467,988 I 33.0% 35.0% 32.6% LIQUID FUELS: $ 87,212 $0 $90,935 I 0.0% 6.3% TOTAL EXPENDITURES: $1,066,858 $1,200,215 $1,256,347 $1,261,980 $1,433,820

Excludes transfers from this fund to other municipal funds. 1

Figure 6.10 I EXPENDITURES COMPARED WITH REVENUE: 1989 - 1993 I Figures shown exclude sums carried over from year to year. I 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

I Revenues $ 636,265 $ 717,611 $ 743,520 $ 723,110 $ 731,904 Expenditures $ 699.690 $ 739.799 $ 753.994 $ 820.207 $ 874.897 I -$ 63,425 -$ 22,188 -$ 10,474 -$ 97,097 -$ 142,993 SEWER FUND Revenues $ 404,721 $ 389,930 $ 427,907 $ 395,216 $ 391,063 I Expenditures $ 367.168 $ 406.548 $ 415,141 $ 441.773 !$ 467.988 $ 37,553 -$ 16,618 $ 12,766 -$ 46,557 -$ 76,925

LIQUID FUELS I Revenues $ 46,531 $ 48,269 $ 46,138 $ 48,797 $ 81,763 Expenditures u $ 53.868 $ 87.212 u $ 90,935 I $ 46,531 -$ 5,599 -$ 41,074 $ 48,797 -$ 9,172 Total Revenue $1,088,291 $1,156,347 $ 1,217,565 $ 1,167,132 $1,204,730 Total $ 1,066,858 $ 1,200.215 $ 1,256.347 $i1,261,980 $1.433,820 Expenditure I DIFFERENCE -$ 21,433 -$ 43,868 -$ 38,782 -$ 94,848 -$ 229.090 D

I Federal revenue sharing funds are not shown on this chart due to both the insignificance of the sums involved and the fact that no expenditures were made from this fund directly, only to supplement other funds. For this reason, total revenues for 1989 and 1990 are slightly higher than the sume of the three I funds shown. No federal revenue sharing funds were received for any of the other years shown here. I I II I 1 I I safe groundwater supply and assuring the proper functioning of sanitary sewer systems. Nearly all of these I expenditures are for the services of the Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO)and well analyses.

SEWER FUND: The Sewer Fund is a restricted fund. That is, all expenditures from this fund miisf be related I to sewage conveyance or treatment. Since Laureldale does not own any type of treatment facility, most of these costs represent payments to the City of Reading for treatment. In fact, in 1991, all of the expenditures I from the Sewer Fund were to the City for treatment. In the other years shown, not less than three-quarters of this spending was for treatment, with the remaining sum going toward capital purchases and construction I projects. I STATE LIQUID FUELS HIGHWAY AID FUND These funds, provided by the State, must be used for street cleaning, snow removal, street improvements (general repairs, storm drainage, lighting), sidewalk construction or repair, repair of maintenance equipment, and construction of new streets. Laureldale has not I spent this money each year, but has made a habit of allowing it to accumulate to enable them to take on I bigger projects. This practice is responsible for the sudden jumps in spending observed on Figure 6.9. Summary and Conclusions I * Laureldale is a net exporter of workers: the 1990 Census reports 1,818 employed residents over the age of 16, and there are only about 1,250 jobs available in the Borough itself. Therefore, the community I must rely upon the region to supply employment for its residents. An assessment of the local employment pool reveals that there are over 30,000 jobs in the immediate area.

I * About a third of the working residents of the Borough are employed in manufacturing: clearly the dominant industry in both the Borough and for the area defined as the employment pool. I Manufacturing jobs account for half of the local employment pool, but only about a fifth of the em- ployed persons in the County are in manufacturing. Since manufacturing is a declining industry in I the County. r7 smaller proportion of manufacturing workers suggests a healthy diversity of employment. I * The percentage of Borough residents who work in finance, insurance, and real estate is surprisingly high. This field suggests younger workers with a good potential for higher future income. If the I Borough is able to maintain a high quality of life and a high level of municipal services, these individuals may decide to remain in the Borough even if their incomes should rise to where they can I afford to leave.

I VI- 16 I The general pattern of employment is consistent with regional employment opportunities and the d I County. The most significant variance from the County pattern is in agriculture. Over 10% of employed County residents do farm work; for Laureldale, being a Borough, this figure is under- I standably much lower. I Statistics provided by the State show that manufacturing, construction, and wholesale trade are all declining industries in Berks County. As a group, these industries employ 44% of the workers I residing in the Borough. The overall increase in jobs and decrease in unemployment is not due to a revival of the area's I traditional eronomic base (i.e., manufacturing), but to a broader restructuring, with sigruficant growth I in the retail trade and service industries. Any efforts on the part of the Borough to attract new employers should be focused upon the growing I industries.

Data identifying occupations held by Borough residents, when compared with the County, show a I higher proportion of activities directly related to manufacturing (clerical, sales, skilled and unskilled labor). The proportion of Borough residents in professional, executive, and managerial positions is I lower than for the County as a whole. This is consistent with the picture of the Borough as a working- I class community. Median family income ($37,679) is very nearly the same as the County median ($37,775). A large I number of single-person households creates an odd, two-peaked graph of median househoZd incomes. I Only 2.1% of families in the Borough live below the poverty level: a remarkably low figure.

County-wide, unemployment is declining. Locally, this may not be the case due to the prominence of I manufacturing - a declining industry - as an employer. I ~I I

I VI - 17 I Figure 6.1 I I COMPARISON OF INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS: CENSUS BUREAU AND S.I.C. SIC codes are four-digit numbers. On the following chart, the two digits shown indicate the first two digits only; the remaining digits of any given SIC designation will provide additional levels of detail.

I CENSUS DESIGNATION CORRESPONDING S.I.C. CODES Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries 01 : agricultural prods., crops 02: agricultural prods., livestock I 07: agricultural services 08: forestry I 09: fishing, hunting, and trapping Mining 10: metal mining 12: coal mining 13: oil and gas extraction I 14: non-metallic minerals

Construction 15: general building contractors I 16: heavy const;mction 17: special trade contractors I Manufacturing, non-durable 20: food processing 21: tobacco products 22: textiles 23: apparel, other textile products I 26: paper and related products 27: printing and publishing 28: chemicals and related products I 29: petroleum and coal products 30: rubber and plastic products I 31: leather, leather products Manufacturing, durable 24: lumber and wood products 25: furniture and fixtures 32: stone, clay, and glass products I 33: primary metal industries 34: fabricated metal products 35: industrial machinery, equipment I 36: electronics 37: transportation equipment I 38: instruments, related products SIC numbers beginning with "39" are "miscellaneous manufacturing industries" and include the manufacture of both durable and non-durable goods.

I Transportation 40: railroads 41 : mass transit 42: trucking and warehousing I 43: U.S. Postal Service 44: water transportation 45: air transportation 47: transportation services

VI-18 Communications and Utilities 46: pipelines, exc. natural gas 48: communications 49: electric, gas, and sanitary svcs.

Wholesale Trade 50: durable goods 51: non-durable goods

Retail Trade 52: bldg materials, garden supplies 53: general merchandise 54: food stores 55: automobile dealer, service sta. 56: apparel and accessories 57: home furnishings 58: eating and drinking places 59: miscellaneous

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 60: depository institutions 61: non-depository institutions 62: security and commodity brokers 63: insurance carriers 64: insurance agents, brokers, svc. 65: real estate m 67: holding co., other investment Business and Repair Services 73: business services 75: auto repair, services, parking I 76: miscellaneous repair services I Personal Services 72: personal services Professional Services: Health Care 80: health services Education 82: educational services Other Professional Services 81: legal services 83: social services 86: membership organizations 87: engineering and management svcs.

Entertainment and Recreation 70: hotels, lodging II 78: motion pictures 79: amusement and recreation services I 84: museums, gardens, zoos Public Administration 91 : executive, legislative, general 92: justice, public order, safety 93: finance, taxation, fiscal policy I 94: administration of human resources 95: environmental quality, housing 96: administration of economic programs I 97: national security, international affairs

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1979 [most recent version of SIC].

VI-19 I I I I Introduction I The variety and quality of community facilities and services plays a large role in the quality of life available to Borough residents. For our purposes, the term "facilities and services" refers to all buildings, lands, and personal services available to residents, regardless of whether they are provided by the public or private I sector. This chapter will provide details on the provision of municipal administration, emergency services (police, firefighting, and ambulance service), health care, education, recreation, water supply, sewage I disposal, trash disposal, and the various utilities. This chapter is an inventory only. Where appropriate, an address or telephone number' of the facility or service provider has been provided. In Chapter Twelve, I Community Facilities and Services Plan, an appropriate municipal planning strategy is described for each I facility or service type, based upon the current adequacy of the facility or service described, the anticipated I demands of the projected population, and the extent to which the Borough is able to affect the operation of that particular facility or service.

I Municipal Administration The Borough provides a number of facilities and services to residents directly. Most of these will be I considered elsewhere in this chapter, under the appropriate subject heading. Other facilities can be classified I only as administrative in nature, and these are dealt with here. Borough of Laureldale Employees: 1secretary 3406 Kutztown Rd. 1custodian Laureldale, PA 19605 4 police (full-time) I tel929-8700 5 road crew

I Located on the west side of Kutztown Road, between Bellevue and Elizabeth Streets, Borough Hall provides office space for the Borough Police Department and other municipal employees. Personnel which are based II here include the four full-time police officers, a full-time secretary, and a custodian. In addition to office space, Borough Hall has several meeting rooms and is used as a polling place. The lower level is currently I being renovated for police use. At one time, this level served as a community center, but this function has become infrequent in recent years. Borough Council held its first meeting at the current building on April 16, I 1969. t Unless otherwise noted, all telephone numbers are in area code 610. I VII-1 I I

A 1 The five-man street crew works out of the Borough Garage on Hawthome Street, adjacent to the northwest comer of the Borough Park. At the opposite comer of the park, along Rosedale Avenue, is another, older I garage which is now used for storage. For street maintenance, the Borough owns a pick-up truck, a pair of one-ton dump trucks, a large dump truck, a leaf collector, a backhoe, a pair of salt spreaders, equipment for I patching streets, and miscellaneous lawn equipment for the maintenance of Borough property.

Municipal policy is established by the seven members of Borough Council. Council is assisted in its func- ~I tions by the four-member Planning Commission; there is also a recreation board, which serves in an advisory capacity. The Zoning Hearing Board is an associated quasi-judicial entity which administers the Zoning I Ordinance, with some limited interpretive authority. Finally, there is a three-member Civil Service Board. This Board, comprised of Borough residents, is responsible for administering the civil service examinations I required by the federal government before the Borough hires certain personnel. In the case of Laureldale, potential police department hires are the most frequent test-takers. This Board does not meet regularly, and I their function is needed only infrequently.

Emergency Services I Emergency services include police and fire protection along with ambulance and rescue services. All parts of the Township are served by the Berks County 911 emergency response system. Under this system, the I appropriate help for any sort of emergency can be obtained by calling 9-1-1 on a telephone. The appropriate response is determined by a central dispatcher. The service providers listed in this chapter are all located I either within or hi proximity to the Township and hence are most likely to be assigned to respond to an emergency situation in the Borough. However, if the provider listed is unavailable or not equipped to meet I the particular situation, other providers within the County are dispatched.

POLICE PROTECTION Laureldale provides police protection for its residents as a municipal service. I There are four full-time police officers headquartered at the Borough Hall on Kutztown Road. This I force is supplemented as needed by part-time officers. FIRE PROTECTION The Central Fire Company is located near the geographic center of Laureldale, I where Bellewe Avenue ends at Mont Clare. The location is important: sited on the west side of the former rail line, the company must have ready access to the Elizabeth Avenue overpass, the only I connection to the east side of the Borough. The company property includes a large social facility. I

I vn-2 ~I Central Fire Company 1409 Park Place Laureldale, PA 19605 tel: 378-5500 EMERGENCY. 378-4911 or 911

AMBULANCE SERVICE: Ambulance service is provided by the Muhlenberg Area Ambulance 'I Association which, in spite of its name, is headquartered in the Borough adjacent to the school campus. The association is a volunteer organization with two ambulances and approximately thirty- five active crew members. Muhlenberg Ambulance is classified as a BLS (basic life support) provider. I ALS (advanced life support) service is provided through an arrangement with North-Central Berks Advanced Life Support of Leesport, which maintains a part-time station at MAAA's Bellevue Avenue I headquarters.

Muhlenberg Area Ambulance Association I 835 Bellevue Ave. Laureldale, PA 19605 tel: 929-5773 I EMERGENCY 378-4911 or 911

I The Borough is not a direct provider of health care services. Its only direct involvement in health care is to retain a local doctor as health inspector. The inspector's function is to investigate reports of unsanitary or I otherwise unhealthful conditions in the Borough and to determine whether or not such conditions pose a health hazard to the occupants of the property, neighbors, or the general public. The current health officer is I Dr. William Santoro, who maintains a practice in the Borough on Kutztown Road. Otherwise, the Boroughs health care responsibilities are fulfilled by accommodating health care facilities through the Zoning I Ordinance. The following inventory includes hospitals and clinics with more than one doctor. There are a number of individual practices in the Borough, but are not listed in the interest of brevity. I The Reading Hospital and Medical Center, located in West Reading, is the largest medical hospital in Berks County. Community General Hospital and St.Joseph's Hospital are other major facilities located in I Reading. Among the three, a wide range of medical services is readily available to Laureldale residents.

Community General Hospital Reading Hospital & Medical Center I 145 N. Sixth St. Sixth & Spruce Sts. Reading,PA 19603 . West Reading, PA 19611 I tel: 376-4881 tel: 378-6000 St.Joseph's Hospital Twelfth & Walnut Sts. I Reading, PA 19604 tel: 378-2000 I VI1 - 3 I In addition to the hospitals, two clinics are located nearby in Muhlenberg Township and a third is in Temple. -

Berks Pediatric Associates, Inc. Doctors' Convenient Care Center 2808 N. Fifth St. Hwy. 3535 N. Fifth St. Hwy. eaduig, PA 19605 Reading, PA 19605 tel: 921-1111 tel: 921-2055

Muhlenberg Medical Associates, Ltd. 4201 Kutztown Rd. Temple, PA 19560 tel: 921-2094

Education The Muhlenberg School District encompasses Laureldale, Muhlenberg Township, and the Borough of Temple. The District operates five buildings: the Muhlenberg Primary School (kindergarten and first grade with some second grade classes), C.E. Cole Intermediate School (the remaining second grade classes plus the third and fourth grades), Muhlenberg Middle School (grades five through seven), Muhlenberg Senior High School (grades eight through twelve), and an administration building. These buildings are sited on a single large property near the center of the district, creating a large campus area occupying portions of Muhlenberg Township and Laureldale between Fifth Street Highway and Kutztown Road. The Middle School and the Administrative Offices are in Laureldale; the other buildings are in Muhlenberg.

I The Reading-Muhlenberg Vocational-Technical School provides vocational education for high school students at its facility in the southeastem comer of Muhlenberg Township. It is a joint operation of the Reading and Muhlenberg School Districts. Approximately 900 students are enrolled in one of twenty-eight vocational programs. These programs train students in construction related trades, automobile and small engine repair, drafting, and personal services, such as cosmetology.

Muhlenberg School District Reading-Muhlenberg Vo-Tech School I Adini nis trative Building Spring Valley Rd. & Warren Rd. 801 Bellevue Ave. Reading, PA 19605 Laureldale, PA 19605 tel: 921-7300 1 tel: 921-8071

In addition to the public school system, a number of private schools are readily available to Borough residents. The parochial school system of the Roman Catholic Church has several facilities in the Reading I area. Located along Kutztown Road, Holy Guardian Angels Elementary School is in Muhlenberg Township, adjacent to the Borough. It has a pre-school for three- and four-year-olds and regular classes for I kindergarten through eighth grade. School facilities are generally reserved for student use. Central Catholic High School, loca ted in the city of Reading near Peds Common provides secondary education within the

VI1 - 4 parochial system to Laureldale residents. Central has approximately 400 students enrolled in gracfes nine I through twelve. The school reports that, while enrollment may vary from year to year, there is no distinct trend of growth or decline.

I Central Catholic High School Holy Guardian Angels Elem. School 1400 Hill Rd. 3125 Kutztown Rd. Reading, PA 19602 Reading, PA 19605 I tel: 373-4178 tel: 929-4124

There are several other private schools which are readily accessible to the Borough. All of these are pre- schools, supplementing the public education system; none provide elementary or secondary education. They are described in alphabetic order. Calvary Christian Pre-School, a ministry of the Calvary Lutheran Church I in Laureldale, admits children between the ages of three and five. The Circle of Learning pre-school in Temple is privately owned and unaffiliated with any other organization. During the school year, pre-school I and day care are offered for children between the ages of six weeks and five years. During the summer months, day care is available for children up to twelve years of age. The Little People Day School also I admits children between the ages of six weeks and five years; a day camp operates during the summer months for children up to eleven years old.

I Calvary Christian Pre-School Circle of Learning 1009 Elizabeth Ave. 704 Hay Rd. Laureldale, PA 19605 Temple, PA 19560 I tel: 929-9606 tel: 921-8821

Little People Day School I 3060 Kutztown Rd. Reading, PA 19605 I tel: 921-1414 No colleges or universities are located in the Borough, but several are quite close by. The nearest is Albright I College, a private four-year liberal arts college in Reading located less than two miles from the Borough. Alvemia College, a four-year liberal arts college operated by the Bemardine Sisters of the Roman Catholic Church, is also in Reading, about six miles from Laureldale. The Reading Area Community College offers a I two-year program at its city campus. It is supported by the city and the surrounding municipalities. Other colleges within commuting distance include the Berks Campus of the Pennsylvania State University, I Kutztown University, and about a half-dozen schools in the greater Allentown area: Cedar Crest College, Lafayette College, Lehigh University, Moravian College, Muhlenberg College, Penn State's Allentown I campus in Fogelsbiirg, and St.Francis de Sales College. I The public and Catholic schools have libraries available for use by their students. The public is welcomed at the Muhlenberg Community Library, located in the Borough at the comer of Kutztown Road and Freemont I VI1 - 5 Street. As a member of the Berks County Public Library system, the library gives patrons access to 450,000 items available throughout the system. In addition to books and magazines, the library has books-on-tape, videos, and audio recordings. Currently, the library has need for additional space. The Borough recognizes the benefits of having the library in the community, and wishes to assist in whatever way it can to encourage the facility to remain at this site - perhaps in an enlarged building - rather than move to another location less accessible to Borough residents. The current library location is well suited for use by the schools, children, and other local residents who do not have access to a car.

Muhlenberg Community Library 3601 Kutztown Rd. Laureldale, PA 19605 tel: 929-0589

Recreation and Open Space Recreational facilities and permanent open space areas may be classified in several different ways. For this Plan, we have chosen to base our inventory upon public accessibility. Three categories, defined below, have been used.

A public facility is owned (or leased) and operated by the public sector and is available for use by the general public. In some cases there may be a charge for the use of some facilities, but access is free. These are always non-profit operations. School district facilities are included in this category, although access is sometimes limited to students of the school in question.

A private facility available to the public is one that is owned and operated by the private sector as a for-profit venture. There is typically an admission fee and there may be an additional fee for the use of the facilities, but these are not clubs with membership or dues requirements.

A private facility for members only is essentially a club of some type, owned and operated by a : group solely for use by the members of that group and their guests. Facilities of this type are of limited use to the general public, but may provide an aesthetic benefit to the public if a substantial amount of property is involved.

Within each category, the facilities are listed by size, in descending order. Note that a distinction has been made between recreational facilities and open space facilities. Recreational facilities are defined as lands which have been improved for formal recreation, such as team sports or some other leisure activity which requires a specialized structure or field. Open space areas are maintained in a more or less natural condition. Some forms of passive recreation - such as hiking, picnicking, and birdwatching - may be accommodated. Most of the Borough is densely developed, but the Laurel Hill area, recently annexed to the Borough, is

VII-6 I virtually all open space, much of it public area owned by the Borough even before the annexation. This area I is described in more detail below as the Laureldale Community Park. Public recreation within Laureldale itself is limited to a single park near the center of the Borough. There are other facilities readily accessible to I Borough residents in nearby areas of Muhlenberg Township; these have been included in the following roster.

I PUBLIC FACILITIES: Laureldale Community Park occupies 72.0 acres at the eastern end of the Borough. The tract was donated to I the Borough many years ago with the proviso that it be restricted to recreational use. Although owned by the Borough, the land was part of Muhlenberg Township until 1992, when the Borough formally annexed the I property. In addition to a large natural open space area, the park has a baseball diamond, a playground, a tot-lot, and two picnic pavilions, one with adjacent enclosed kitchen facilities. The American Legion I maintains a memorial at this site.

The Muhlenberg School District owns and maintains a campus covering 52.1 acres in Laureldale and I Muhlenberg Township. The tract is occupied by four school buildings and recreational facilities. These facilities are designed to meet the needs of the students, although they are available for public use when not I being used for school functions. The high school has three baseball diamonds, a football stadium and a separate practice field, a soccer/hockey field, eight tennis courts, facilities for track and field activities, and I an indoor swimming pool.

I Bernhart's Reservoir is a scenic man-made lake on a 37.8 tract located southeast of Laureldale in Muhlenberg Township. Water sports are not officially permitted here, but there are facilities for picnicking and barbecu- I ing. The reservoir and the surrounding land is owned by the City of Reading.

The Laureldale Playground, covering 3.3 acres on the south side of Frush Valley Road, includes two baseball I diamonds, a lit basketball court, playground equipment, a tot-lot, and a concession stand.

I PRIVATE FACILITIES WITH PUBLIC ACCESS: The Muhlenberg Township Athletic Association operates the Mighty Mite Field, a baseball field on a Cacre I site located principally in Muhlenberg Township, but accessed by a driveway from Frush Valley Road in the Borough. Finally, there are some recreational facilities nearby in Muhlenberg Township which are more I commercial in character. These include Schell's Miniature Golf on the Fifth Street Highway near Temple, Fantasv Roller Skating Rink on George Street, and the Laurel Lanes bowling alley. 4 " " -. I

I VII-7 I I PRIVATE FACILITIES WITH NO PUBLIC ACCESS (MEMBERS ONLY): I Facilities in this category include the playgrounds at the Spring Valley Church of God on Old Pricetown Road and Holy Guardian Angels School. I Water Supplv Public water service is supplied to the entire Borough by the Muhlenberg Township Authority. The ,I Authority is the operating agent, managing its own supply and treatment facilities as well as the distribution system. Water is supplied from a network twelve wells owned by the Authority. Four of these are consid- I ered full-time sources and a fifth is used as a supplement when demand is high. The remaining seven wells are in reserve. Water is chlorinated at the wells and is either stored or fed directly to the distribution system, I as demand requires. The Authority maintains one covered reservoir of 225,000 gallons located in Muhlenberg Township near the intersection of Frush Valley Road and Chestnut Street. There are also six I standpipes, one of which is elevated. The system has interconnections with the City of Reading which allow the system to be fed entirely by the city. An interconnection with Temple Borough allows the Authority to I provide Temple with a complete supply in an emergency situation. Muhlenberg Township Authority 2840 Kutztown Rd. I Reading, PA 19605 tel929-4709

I Sewage- Disposal Public sewage disposal is available in all parts of the Borough. The system was created by a Borough I Authority, which has since been dissolved, making the Borough responsible for the system. In addition to the mains, Laureldale owns and operates a pump station at the intersection of Noble and Belmont Streets, at I the western edge of the Borough. There are no treatment facilities in the Borough. Instead, sewage flows by gravity to the pump station. From there it goes into the sewerage mains owned by the Muhlenberg I Township Authority, which connects to the City of Reading system. The City treats and discharges the effluent into the Schuylkill from its Fritz Island facility, located on the south side of Reading adjacent to I Cumru Township. Solid Waste Disposal I Laureldale is one of relatively few municipalities in Berks County which provides trash removal for its residents. The Borough contracts with a private hauler on behalf of the residents. Through frequent I negotiations and competitive bidding, the Borough has managed to keep the cost of this service relatively constant - a happy contrast to many communities which wrestle with skyrocketing disposal costs. The I current fee charged to residents is $25 quarterly. This includes weekly pick-up of materials for recycling: newspapers, metal cans, and most kinds of glass. I VII-8 I Other Utilities A The Metropolitan Edison Company provides electricity to the Borough; natural gas is supplied by UGI. Telephone service throughout the municipality is provided by Bell Atlantic (the new name for Bell of Pennsylvania), and cable television service is from BerksCable.

Bell Atlantic BerksCable One Parkway 400 Riverfront Dr. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Reading, PA 19602 tel: 1-500-821-0088 tel: 378-4600

Metropolitan Edison Company UGI Corporation 120 Corporate Dr. 225 Morgantown Rd. Read ing, PA 19605 Reading, PA 19611 tel: 926-0569 tel: 375-4441

I I ,I I

I I I I I

VI1 - 9 B I I

I LAURELDALE COMMUNITY PARK I 0 E I E I I I I r A EDUCATIONAL I @ HEALTH CARE 0 RECREATIONAL I COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1 AND SERVICES BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE BERKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA I .. . . I GRAPHIC SW 1' = su) n. I I Introduction This chapter is an inventory of all transportation facilities within the Borough. Those elements of the I transportation infrastructure which are located outside of the Borough but directly affect Borough residents are also included. For Laureldale, like most American communities today, the automobile is the most I common form of transportation. This makes the road system the most important component of the trans- portation network. serving both private motorists and public transit. The bulk of this chapter is concerned I with the description and assessment of the road system within the Borough. Sections describing other modes of transit are included toward the end of the chapter.

I Land use planning cannot be done properly without a working knowledge of the local transportation systems. Property values and development potential of a given area are, for the most part, directly related to I their accessibility. What may not be immediately obvious is that access is really a function of transportation and not just geographic proximity. Consider that two areas which are quite close to each other may have I little effect upon each other if they are separated by a river or some other natural barrier. Land use planning must show an understanding of at least three aspects of the traffic which new or changed development will I generate. First, how will the amount of traffic be affected? Will the proposed changes attract more vehicles or fewer vehicles, and where? Secondly, what type of traffic will experience change? Will the volume of . heavy trucks be affected, or will changes be most noticeable in the number of cars and light trucks? Will the I volume of traffic be affected at rush hours, over the course of the entire day, or on weekends? The third and probably most important question deals with the existing condition of the road system: can it sufeZy handle I the anticipated changes? If not, what must be improvements are needed? Questions of this type are I explored more fully in Chapter Fourteen, the transportation plan; this chapter examines existing conditions. Functional Classification of Roads I Roads are classified according to their design, the volume of traffic which they handle, and the types of trips which they accommodate best. I EXPRESSWAYS are distinguished from other roads by their "limited access" design. That is, they intersect I only the most significant roads at grade-separated interchanges and do not provide any direct access to

VI11 - 1 I adjacent properties. These highways are designed to serve the highest volume of traffic at the highest I speeds. They accommodate inter-state and inter-regional travel.

There are no expressways in Laureldale. The Warren Street By-Pass, to the south, and SR 3055 (the I "Road to Nowhere"), to the north, both have an expressway design, but are quite short, as they are intended to move traffic around and through the more densely developed parts of the County. For I this reason, they do not serve the long-distance traffic characteristic of expressways. The nearest long- distance routes are both east-west interstates. Interstate 76 (the Pennsylvania Turnpike) passes I through the :outhem tip of the County; Interstate 78 runs along the northern edge of the County.

\ I ARTERIAL ROADS are major thoroughfares, typically but not always a numbered route within either the federal or state system, which accommodate high volumes of traffic. Arterials typically have some form of access control in areas of high density development, but they lack the fully controlled interchanges found on expressways. Arterials serve long-distance travel in the absence of expressways, link urban centers, and frequently have more than one lane in each direction. Arterial roads are frequently further classified as either MAJOR ARTERIALS or MINOR ARTERIALS. Major arterials will serve 10,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day, will have more than one lane in each direction, and easily accommodate longer trips in rural areas. Minor arterials will serve between 5,000 and 15,000 vehicles per day, may have only one lane in each direction (perhaps with center left-turn lanes), and typically link smaller population centers.

The Fifth Street Highway (U.S. Route 222) runs almost precisely north-south as it passes Laureldale, clipping the northwestern comer of the Borough. This road is a major arterial, connecting Reading with Lancaster to the south and Allentown to the north. This road is the major suburban commercial area serving the north side of the Reading metropolitan area. A number of shopping malls are located along this road. Fifth Street does not have any intersections within the Borough, but Bellevue Avenue and Elizabeth Avenue both intersect it to the west, in Muhlenberg Township.

Kutztown Road (SR 2011) is a minor arterial running north-south through the western half of the I Borough. It is the most prominent road in Laureldale, functioning as its "main street" and connecting it with Temple to the north and Reading to the south. Kutztown Road carries the highest volume of traffic through the Borough and features the greatest intensity and variety of land uses. In general, the businesses located here are locally oriented, serving the needs of Borough residents and residents of the immediately surrounding parts of the Township. The Borough Hall, police station, and public library are all located along Kutztown Road.

VI11 - 2 I COLLECTOR ROADS typically serve between 1,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day. These roads join I neighborhoods, serve as main routes through neighborhoods, and feed traffic into the arterial network. Elizabeth Avenue fSR 2016), Bellevue Avenue, and the short portion of Mont Clare Avenue which connects I them are collectors. Bellevue and Elizabeth, only a block apart, both intersect the Fifth Street Highway in Muhlenberg Towiship and Kutztown Road in the Borough. Bellevue Avenue is one of the very few streets in the area which intersects these two arterials nnd Route 61 in Muhlenberg Township, giving it some I prominence in thc regional street network. Elizabeth Avenue is the only street in the Borough which crosses the old rail Line, making it especially important to the Borough. Bellevue ends in the Borough, where it I intersects Mont Clare, which connects it to Elizabeth. Elizabeth continues eastward through Muhlenberg I Township, ending at its intersection with Pricetown Road in Alsace Township. In rural and suburban areas, LOCAL ACCESS ROADS provide vehicular access to all adjoining properties I and accommodate fewer than 1,000 vehicles per day. These roads are not efficient for long-distance or through trips due to their length and configuration. All of the named streets in the Borough which are not I otherwise classified are local access streets. SERVICES STREETS and ALLEYS are uniquely urban, providing vehicular access to all abutting properties. I They are not really designed for travel, per se, but provide access to garages (in some cases) and accommodate loading away from public thoroughfares. In most cases, alleys are jointly owned by the I adjacent property owners with a public right of access. In the western part of the Borough, some alleys are used as watercourses for purposes of stormwater management. These have been dedicated to the public and I are maintained by the Borough.

Road Conditions Inventorv I The Laureldale street system is a traditional urban grid with alleys; occasional variations prevent the pattern from becoming monotonous. This arrangement is typical of towns, like Laureldale, which were laid out I before they were constructed. Until fie latter half of the twentieth century, this pattern was considered ideal as it allowed for an organized street system, easy orientation, and quick and simple establishment of lots. I The addition of alleys, such as found here, allowed for service to the rear of the lots, narrower lot widths, and more freely flowing traffic on the frontage streets. The curvilinear street layout characteristic of the post-war ~I suburbs was in reaction to the perceived monotony and congestion of the grid system, but it was discovered that this too could produce its own form of monotony and that a larger lot for each home did not always create a more pleasant community. The current swing toward the "neo-traditional" urban model recognizes, ~I once again, the economic, environmental, and psychological benefits of the high-density grid pattern. I

I VI11 - 3 1 I In Laureldale, there is a major glitch in the street network the former rail Line which bisects the Borough - I and which caused it to be founded in the first place - all but isolates the eastern half from the western half. Elizabeth Avenue is the ody crossing point within the Borough limits, and even this road has an awkward I configuration at the intersection of Mont Clare Street. The rail bed is either elevated or depressed for most of its length, so at-grade crossing is not possible; furthermore, the street grids on either side of the track are not I aligned with each other, so any new connections would require more than just building a bridge. Within the Borough there are 14.91 miles of public roadway: 1.73 miles of state road and 13.18 miles of I Borough road (exc!uding alleys and service streets). There is some deteriorating pavement on County Street between Gray and Montrose, caused by groundwater welling up and flowing almost constantly in the street I gutters. Elsewhere, cartway condition is good to excellent.

Design Deficiencies of Streets I Within a municipal Comprehensive Plan such as this one, road hazards resulting from the alignment of roads are inventoried. Such hazards include excessive horizontal and vertical curves and poorly aligned I intersections. One may consider the “jog” in Hawthorne Street near the Borough Garage to be a pair of excessive horizontal curves; however, there is no problem of visibility here whatsoever and traffic is (or I should be) travelhie; slowly at this point. For these reasons, this feature should not be considered a hazard. In fact, straightening these curves may actually create a hazard since vehicle speeds would probably increase I as a result. Due to the grid pattern of the street network and the gently sloping topography, there are no . horizontal curve hazards and only one serious vedcal curve hazard. This hazard is at the Elizabeth Avenue I overpass of the defunct rail Line. The “hump” in the bridge creates a severe visibility problem at the intersections of Rosedale Avenue and Montrose Avenue.

I A grid-type street pattern typically creates intersections with little or no problems regarding sight distance. However, the Boroughs streets do not follow the grid strictly: there are quirks which create diversity, I interest, and - unfortunately - potential hazards. Five intersections have been identified as being poorly I aligned. These are described below in descending order of importance. 1. Elizabeth/Mont Clare - As the only east-west through road in the Borough, any problems with I Elizabeth Avenue must be assigned a high priority. The awkward configuration, created by an off-set of about 100 feet, is mitigated by a wider setback at the northwest comer and the generally low traffic I speed at this point.

2. BellevueNont Clare/Park - Bellevue is the second most important east-west road through I Laureldale, so potential hazards here must be considered sigruficant. As with the Elizabeth/Mont I VI11 - 4 I I Clare intersection, this is an off-set problem: BellevuePark should be straight, but is off-set by - I approximatcly 100 feet along Mont Clare. Although this intersection does not have an exceptionally high volume of traffic or a particularly high rate of speed, it is of special concern since the fire house is located here. Emergency vehicles are an obvious concern, but social events at the fire hall, generating I considerablp traffic, are also affected.

I 3. Kutztown/Relmont/Grove - Belmont and Grove are off-set by about eighty feet along Kutztown Road. Kutztown Road is, by far, the most heavily travelled through road in the Borough. Unlike the I preceding two intersection problems, the major road does continue straight through this intersection, which is why it does not rate as a higher concern. Furthermore, Belmont and Grove are both lightly I travelled, and the overall grid street pattern provides numerous alternatives to this intersection.

4. KindGray - King Street is off-set at Gray by about fifty feet and also changes trajectory. Located I within a residential area, traffic is light and low speed.

I 5. GroveMont Clare - The slight jog in this three-point intersection is not a significant hazard in this I residential neighborhood. Volume of Traffic on Most Streets is Within Limits I The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) maintains records on traffic volume on state roads. These data are revised periodically using a mathematical formula to estimate change in the number of vehicles until such tiiiie as new data can be collected. Kutztown Road, Elizabeth Avenue, and the Fifth Street I Highway are the only state roads in the Borough. Although only a tiny portion of Fifth Street is within the Borough, it is arguably the most important road on the north side of Reading and is clearly a vital arterial. I As such, its condition is of some consequence to Laureldale. In spite of improvements to Fifth Street over the past few years, there are serious congestion problems at rush hours, evenings, and on weekends. The levels I of traffic on Kutztown Road and Elizabeth Avenue are characteristic of the road type. However, the Berks County Comprehensive Plan of 1991 observed that the volume of traffic on Kutztown Road was in excess of I its design capacity. This observation is still true today, as one may quickly confirm by standing along the street at almost any time of the day. The problem may be that, although it functions as a minor arterial road, I its design does not support this function. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street, and lane widths are narrower than optimum. As discussed more fully in Chapter Fourteen, restricting parking to one side and widening the travel lanes is probably not the answer: increasing vehicle speed through the Borough is I not necessarily a good thing, especially in an area with many pedestrians. I I VI11 - 5 I .- '. I e I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I

I I:::;::::::] COLLECTOR AND CONDITION LOCAL ACCESS BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE --ALLEY USED AS WATERCOURSE BERKS COUNTY PENN SY LVANI A I 0 550 1100 ROAD CONDITIONS 3 GRAPHIC SCALE 1- .I 550 n. DETERIORATING CARTWAY 1 0 POORLY ALIGNED INTERSECTION I 0 INTERSECTION VISIBILITY PROBLEM I Data shown on Map 8.1 are based upon information collected between 1975 and 1991, all extrapolated to I 1993 by PennDOT. I Public Transportation Availabilitv While private automobile is the dominant mode of transportation, there are viable alternatives. The Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) operates several public bus routes through the Borough; I these busses are the only form of public mass transit serving Laureldale. Routes #1 (Temple/Fifth Street), #3 (Laureldale), and #3a (Kutztown Road) all travel Kutztown Road daily through the Borough. Routes #3 and I #3a provide additional service to the Borough, extending eastward to Oak Street.

I The bus routes work well as transportation to shopping and downtown, although no routes serve the industrial portion of the Borough.

I Rail Travel is Not Available Ironically, the rail lines which caused Laureldale to be established as a community and which figure so ~I prominently in the history of the Reading area have been removed from the Borough. A number of freight lines still operate within the County, including some service in adjacent Muhlenberg Township. The only I passenger service is provided by a tourist line, the Blue Mountain & Reading, which operates between Tuckerton Road in Muhlenberg Township and Hamburg. The nearest access to Amtrak passenger service is I in Lancaster. I Non-Motorized Transportation As a densely developed Borough, pedestrian travel is a practical transportation alternative in many cases. Virtually all Borough streets have sidewalks, and the generally low traffic speeds make walking pleasant. I Vehicle speeds increase at the edges of the Borough, diminishing the experience. This is especially noticeable I at the northern and southern ends of Kutztown Road and along portions of Montrose Avenue. In most urban areas, the creation of recreational hiking trails is somewhat redundant since, as in Laureldale, I the many sidewalks are more than adequate for all forms of pedestrian travel. However, the abandoned rail line, which passes through both the Borough and Muhlenberg Township, is currently being investigated by I the Township for re-use as a trail for hiking and bicycling.

Borough streets are not well-suited for bicycling due to their relatively narrow design and the prevalence of I curbside parking. Nevertheless, bicycles are a common sight in pleasant weather. I I VI11 - 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I LEGEND I STREET W/ SIDEWALKS .*e.*.. .*e.*.. BARTA ROUTE I = - = ABANDONED RAIL LINE I PUBLIC TRANSIT BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE I BERKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA I GWWC SULE 1- I 550 n. I I Air Transportation is Readilv Accessible I There are no airports or airfields within the Borough limits. Reading Regional Airport, the principal airport serving Berks County, is located nearby in Bern Township. Scheduled and chartered passenger service are provided at the airport, as is air freight service. Most of the scheduled passenger service is in the form of I commuter flights provided by USAir Express to the USAir hubs in Philadelphia, Baltimore-Washington, and I Pittsburgh. Summarv and Planning; Implications I * Private automobile is the most popular form of transportation, and the road network is the most prominent element of the Boroughs transportation infrastructure. I * The streets are arranged in a grid pattern, typical of urban areas of the period. I * The most important street in the Borough is Kutztown Road, which is considered a minor arterial; Elizabeth Avenue and Bellevue Avenue are major collectors and the next most important to I Laureldale. U.S. Route 222 (Fifth Skeet Highway) is a major arterial serving the region which just nicks the northwestem comer of the Borough. Elizabeth and Bellevue both intersect this road beyond I the Borough limits.

I * There are no expressways in Laureldale. I * Kutztown Road and Elizabeth Avenue are the only state roads in the Borough; the remaining named streets belong to the Borough.

I * The principal roads have congestion problems. However, expansion would be difficult and may not I really be desirable, since widening any streets would be detrimental to the character of the Borough. * Vehicle speed through the Borough is generally low, due in part to the design of the road network I numerous intersections and stop signs along with narrow cartways and on-street parking discourage high-speed travel. I * The most serious flaw in the road network is the division caused by the bed of the former rail line. Only Elizabeth Street crosses the bed in the Borough, so that the eastern half of town is sharply I divided from the western half. I I VI11 - 7 I The Elizabeth Avenue overpass creates the most serious road hazard in the Borough. By its design, visibility at the intersection of Elizabeth with both Rosedale and Montrose Avenues is extremely poor.

Aberrations of the grid pattern have created several awkward and potentially hazardous intersections, although the danger is mitigated somewhat by the generally low vehicle speeds.

Widening streets could be accomplished by eliminating some on-street parking, but this would create parking problems and would also be detrimental to the town character. Also, it is unlikely that this step alone ivould generate additional commercial or industrial development.

Mass transit is available to Borough residents in the form of daily bus service provided by BARTA.

Most streets have sidewalks, so there is ample accommodation for pedestrians.

I:

I I VI11 - 8 I An inventory of current land use not only reveals the geographic distribution of different activities, but helps to understand conditions in the Borough as well. Analysis of land use patterns may reveal where (and why) traffic congestion is a problem, areas of potential conflict between neighboring properties, and conditions that will affect plans for the future. This chapter is based upon information gathered during a field survey of the Borough conducted by the consultant in May 1994. The classification system used is based upon the actual use of the property. For example, the Borough park on Hawthorne Street is shown as a park (its use), not as institutional (its owner). The analysis here considers the impacts of the uses upon the transportation network, municipal finances, and general aesthetics.

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first is a general description of the development pattern of the Borough and includes a detailed breakdown of land uses by area and an analysis of the use patterns. These are illustrated in Figure 9.1, the existing land use map. The second section is a detailed description of the land use categqries used. The third section is the planning implications.

Development in the Borough Geography has blessed Laureldale with few natural impediments to development. The physical elements I which have defined development are manmade. The most significant of these elements are the road network and the former rail line. These and other elements have also defined the borders of the municipality, at least I perceptually, allowing Laureldale to retain a sense of being set apart from the surrounding suburbs. Steep hills generally define the eastern side of town while the commercial strip along the Fifth Street Highway defines the western edge. Gethsemane Cemetery (in Muhlenberg Township) and the Yuasa facilities are the I southern "gateways" along Kutztown Road and Montrose Avenue, respectively. The Muhlenberg School campus marks the northern end of town. As the map shows, these are not the precise locations of the I Boroughs extremeties, but they are the landmarks which "announce" that one is entering or leaving the Borough. Except for the industrial area in the southern end of the municipality, Laureldale has a scale of I development that is more oriented for pedestrian travel than automobile use. While this may cause some traffic congestion problems, as described in the preceding chapter, there is a benefit in that vehicle speeds are I relatively low, making the neighborhoods pleasant places to walk and to live. The overall character of the municipality may,be summarized as that of a town: a small, urban place. I IX-1 I As shown on the map and on Figure 9.2, over half of the Borough is developed for residential use. When the Borough was originally laid out, most of the lots were twenty feet wide. However, most of the original I buyers opted to purchase two or more adjacent lots so that today most of the residential lots are forty or sixty feet wide. These areas are labelled as "high-densityresidential." In some cases, the lots are even wider, and there are a few locations where the character is nearly suburban rather than urban. These areas are shown as I "medium density rcsidential." Note that there is only one recreational area within the residential portion of the Borough. Kutztnwn Road is Laureldale's "Main Street;" its tight mix of commercial, office, and residential I uses makes it especially noticeable on the map. Note that there are few commercial uses in other parts of the Borough. In more rural settings, boroughs function as commercial centers for the surrounding region. I Laureldale, obviously, does not fill this role. The lack of major commercial activity in the Borough is probably attributable to the proximity of the major commercial areas in Muhlenberg Township along Fifth I Street Highway. There is a significant concentration of industrial uses in the south, in and around the former knitting mill and associated industries. Note that there are a number of residential properties in and around the industrial area. This arrangement has created a point of some contention in the Borough as the residents I here are subjected to the unpleasant side effects of the manufacturing processes conducted here. This is a difficult situation for the Borough, a left-over from the days when most factory workers lived as close to their I places of employment as possible. Industrial uses have been here as long as the Borough has. Their activities are permitted by the zoning regulations, and they contribute much-needed tax revenue to the Borough. On I the other hand, the residents are also land owners, but are unable to enjoy the full use of their land due to the noise, smell, and other normal side effects of the industrial activity. The recently annexed open space area on 1 the east side of town is notable, as is the school area on the west. I 'I 'I I I I I

IX-2 I Figure 9.2 I ACREAGE OCCUPIED BY SPECIFIC LAND USES I Land uses are listed in descending order according to acreage so utilized. Land Use TvDe Acres YO of Borouah RESIDENTIAL High Density 236.6 45.6% I OPEN SPACE Woodlands 77.3 14.9% RESIDENTIAL Low Density 51.9 10.0% I INDlJSTRlAL Manufacturing 40.7 7.8% INSTITUTIONAL School 33.7 6.5% I OPEN SPACE Roads 26.0 5.0% OPEN SPACE Developed Parkland 14.5 2.8% COMMERCIAL Retail Sales 9.9 1.9% OPEN SPACE Vacant 9.9 1.9% INSTITUTIONAL Non-School 5.7 1.1% I COM MERClAL Office & Services 4.7 0.9% INDUSTRIAL support 4.4 0.9% I RESIDENTIAL Multi-Familv 3.6 0.7% I TOTAL 518.9 100.0% Total Residential 292.1 56.3% Total Open Space 127.7 24.6% Total Industrial 45.1 8.7% Total Institutional 39.4 7.6% Total Commercial 14.6 2.8%

I SOURCE: Systems Design Engineering field survey, May 1994.

I In conclusion, Laureldale may be described as a predominantly residential community of urban density with some minor commercial activity and a major industrial area in the south. I Description of Land Use Categories- I The following descriptions are provided to give insight as to how each property was assigned to a category. RESIDENTIAL areas includes tracts occupied by dwelling units and their associated yard areas, regardless I of whether or not they are vacant. Most homes in Laureldale are single family detached dwellings. There are a number of single family attached ("twin") homes as well, but fewer than what might be expected in a

I IX-3 I Borough. There are few row home structures (three or more dwellings) and only one apartment complex, although some formerly single family structures have been divided into apartments and some apartments are found in conjunction with commercial uses. Both the complex and the conversions are marked as apartment. The diqtinction between medium density and high density is somewhat subjective. It is most helpful to remember that, for our purposes, these terms are intended to characterize neighborhoods, not individual lots. Where the character of an area becomes more suburban - larger homes on larger lots with generous side yards - it is deemed "medium density." At the beginning of this survey it was determined that a "low density" dwignation would be misleading and should be avoided. While the largest lots in the Borough could be given this designation, it was noted that even these are less than an acre and that this development is not truly what one would consider "low density."

COMMERCIAL activities provide both goods and services to the general public. Retail sales and services includes shops and retail services such as hair stylists, photographer's studios, and auto repair. Office and professional service includes business offices (except where they are auxiliary to an industrial use) and the offices of doctors, dentists, lawyers, and similar professionals.

INSTITUTIONAL properties are those belonging to public and not-for-profit entities. Because the school I campus is so prominent it has its own category. It includes actual school buildings as well as the grounds and administrative offices. Other institutional uses include Borough facilities, churches, the public library, I the fire company, and the ambulance association.

INDUSTRIAL lands are those occupied by industrial structures and support areas. Manufacturing encompasses most of the industrial activity in Laureldale. Support consists of the Boscov's warehouse and I the telephone facility at the comer of Kutztown Road and Bellevue Avenue. I OPEN SPACE has three sub-categories. Developed park includes areas which have been improved in some fashion for recreational use. Woodlands are found solely in the Laurel Hill annexation. Vacant properties I are areas of unused land, which in some cases function as parking lots, and major vacant structures. Planning Imulications I * The most immediately obvious land-use related fact is that there is virtually no significant area of unused land in the Borough left to be developed. The vacant lots in the industrial area are already I owned by the adjacent industries, and the Laurel Hill area is too severely constrained to accommodate any significant amount of new construction. I

'I Ix-4 'I I

* The map also reveals at least part of the cause of the Boroughs financial strain. It is a well- I documented fact that the tax revenue generated by residential lands is insufficient to pay for the public services consumed by the residents. In addition, large areas of land are owned by tax-exempt I entities, principally the school district and the Borough itself. For these reasons, the Boroughs industrial and commercial sectors are vitally important, in spite of past problems with industrial land I owners. I * There are some areas of conflicting use, most notably the mix of residential and industrial uses in the southern part of the Borough.

I * The biggest challenge facing the Borough is to find ways to increase its tax base. The lack of developable land, many narrow streets, difficulty of access to Route 222, lack of rail service, and the I scale of commercial development in Muhlenberg Township are all obstacles to overcome in the I pursuit of creating new revenue for the Borough. I ~I ~I ‘I I I l I I

I IX-5 I

I I I I I I PART 111: I THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I I I I I I I I I I I I

Introduction I This chapter is the focal point of this Comprehensive Plan. The policies and actions described here are the foundation for the remaining chapters in this document as well as for future I municipal regulations. Throughout this document, the terms "goal" and "objective" are used frequently: these' terms should not be considered interchangeable. For our purposes, a "goal" is a I general statement of Borough policy; in contrast, an "objective" is more specific, a well-defined action or condition to be achieved. The appropriateness of an objective is determined by how I effectively it promotes one or more Borough goals.

Bwause they are more general statements, goals have a flexibility which objectives lack. Even if it I were possible, it would not be practical to establish specific courses of action to respond to all possible future events: the resulting document would be too cumbersome to be useful. Instead, these goals, as broad-brush policy statements, provide a framework upon which to build ~' objectives, like those contained in the chapter, as well as a foundation upon which to base future I decisions addressing issues which are not apparent at this time. The goal statements will also be helpful as new ordinances and ordinance amendments are proposed. As part of the adoption I process for new regulations and amendments, Borough officials must evaluate whether or not the proposed action is compatible with the municipal goals set forth in this Comprehensive Plan. I Over time, as objectives are implemented, the general policy direction of the goal statements will prove increasingly useful as a guide for Borough officials.

I In contrast to the goals, objectives indicate a specific action. It is the objective stahnents which give municipal officials direction once this initial portion of the planning process is completed, getting them started on the process of change. After all, the whole idea of a "plan" implies that 'the planner intends to take some action. Without this intent, planning is just a mental exercise I and the plan document is of little value, if any. In contrast to the long-term usefulness of the goal statements, the value of the objectives is in the short-term: they are steps in the achievement of the I goals. In this chapter, objectives are discussed under the heading of the goal which they support most clearly. Note that there are a number of instances where a single objective may support I more than one goal. This is not surprising, for our goals have been defined such that they support each other. In some cases, objectives may be in conflict. This does not mean that one or

x- 1 the other objective is "wrong," but that mitigating measures should be investigated to minimize I the area of conflict.

Communitv Survev Used in Goal Develooment Process As part of the process of developing goals, a group of Borough residents and community leaders was contacted for their input. This group included representatives of industries located in the Borough, owner!: of Borough businesses, local clergymen, the chiefs of the fire and police departments, and the mayor. None of these individuals were on the committee which developed this document; most of them were Borough residents. Each was asked if they had ever had any contact with the Borough for official reasons, why they chose to settle (or do business) in Laureldale, what they liked best and least about the Borough, if they were satisfied with the quality of Borough services, what they thought Council should be most concerned about, and I whether they thought traffic was a problem. The businessmen were also asked what the Borough could do to improve the local business climate. Upon completion of the survey, the responses I were reviewed and the following observations made.

I Only one of the individuals surveyed made a conscious determination to "move to Laureldale." The others were either life-long residents or came here because of their I employment. Almost without exception, the small-town character of the Borough was named as its biggest I asset and what the interviewee liked best about Laureldale. Convenience to the city and shopping were also noted as sigruficant assets. I Half of those interviewed had no complaints of any kind about how the Borough was run or problems that Council needed to deal with. The quality of the road maintenance was noted by three of the interviewees as an area in need of improvement, but each of these indicated I that this was not, in their opinion, a serious problem. The Borough received uniformly high marks for the quality of municipal services. The police and fire departments were given special mention as being of exceptional quality. Although the businessmen interviewed all stated that they felt they had good relations with the Borough government, and they enjoyed doing business in the Borough, there were some suggestions on how the business climate could be improved. Those who expressed a concern noted that operating a profitable business was difficult enough without having to deal with a lot of local regulations. Two of the interviewees noted that the Borough should be more flexible in regulating commercial and industrial structures - especially conversions of dwellings to non-residential use. The concept of enterprise zones and tax incentives were

x-2 i' also noted; however, due to the limited size of the Borough's industrial area and the current I diminishing revenue, these concepts are probably not feasible for Laureldale to implement. Responses to the question on traffic were unexpected: none of those interviewed considered I the level of traffic - even on Kutztown Road - to be hazardous or inconvenient. In fact, several of the businessmen located on Kutztown Road Iiked the volume of traffic for the I exposure that it provided their business and "wouldn't want it [the traffic] to be less." Those who offered "parting shots" were, without exception, positive: they like living and I working in T.aureldale, and any problems they may have noted were, in their opinions, fairly minor and would not cause them to leave. Of the businessmen interviewed, none were I contemplating leaving, and one stated that his business would be expanding in the near future.

I As gratlfying as the responses were, the Borough realizes that even maintaining the status quo is a challenge. Also, the Borough's most serious problem - which only the mayor mentioned during the interviews - is probably financial, brought on by diminishing tax revenue. The ability to accommodate the commercial and industrial enterprises which generate the most revenue is severely limited by the Borough's size and by the competition for such businesses presented by surrounding communities, Muhlenberg Township in particular.

Upon consideration of the comments and concerns expressed during the survey, as well as other issues that were known, the following goals and supporting objectives have been established.

Goals and Obiectives Goal 1: Enhnnce the Borough tax base OBJECTIVE: Maintain amicable relations with local business people to encourage the retention of existing commercial and industrial activities, and to accommodate their expansion as necessary. I OBJECTTVE: Due to the limited amount of vacant land in the Borough, new commercial uses are likely to be housed in converted dwellings. Adopt zoning and/or land development regulations which facilitate adaptive re-use: the conversion of residential properties to non-residential uses. Confine the areas where such conversions are permitted to locations where they would be most appropriate, such as the Kutztown Road corridor.

OBJECTWE: Identify under-utilized properties and discern how they could be better used. Also, identify why they are under-utilized.

OBJECTIVE: Develop zoning and/or land development regulations which permit residential use in combination with a commercial or office use within a single structure.

x-3 This could be permitted by right in commercial areas and by special exception in I residential zones.' OBJECTTVE: Consider the value of a more aggressive marketing strategy for the Borough. This could include advertising the Borough as a business location in I publications distributed to individuals or corporations in the growing sectors of the local economy (retail sales, services). Retain a marketing consultant for more specific, focused I recornmendations. I Goal 2: Preserve community identity and the residential quality of the Borough OBJECTIVE: Optimize use of recreational facilities, including area of Laurel Hill I annexa tion. OBJECTTVE: Develop and enforce a Borough Zoning Ordinance and a Borough Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance which require new construction to I respect the scale of existing development. OBJECTTVE: Through zoning and attrition, eliminate or minimize conflicts where there I are residential properties in industrial areas. OBJECTIVE: Develop and enforce performance standards which protect residential I districts from the negative effects of commercial and industrial activity. I Goal 3: Maintninlenhance the level of Borough Sentices OBJECTIVE: Maintain amicable relations with Muhlenberg Township in order to avoid unnecesary duplication of services.

I OBJECTIVE: Retain the public library within the Borough, either in its present location or in another location equally or more accessible to Borough residents, particularly children. Contact the Department of Community Affairs to determine the availability of Key'93 I funds to assist the library (a portion of these state-level funds are dedicated to public libraries). I OBJECTIVE: Develop and implement a Master Plan for the Laurel Hill annexation, identifying areas most appropriate for new facilities for active recreation, as well as those areas which are best retained in their natural condition. From the perspective of public ,I health and safety, evaluate the possibility of eliminating the pond from the park. OBJECTIVE: In addition to the development of the Laurel Hill annexation, pursue the realization of the other objectives of the Borough Open Space & Recreation Plan included I in this document.

OBJECTIVE: Utilizing County and State sources of information (such as the County I Planning Commission and the Department of Commdty Affairs), keep abreast of funding available to assist with Borough projects. I OBJECTIVE On a regular basis, evaluate the efficiency of Borough departments. I x-4 I I

Goal 4: Support commercial and industrial activities in the Borough

OBJECTIVE: Maintain amicable relations with Borough business people to maintain I awareness of their needs and concerns.

OBJECTIVE: Identify areas of the Borough where the needs of commercial and industrial I operations will be allowed to have precedence over those of residential uses. OBJECTIVE: Develop zoning and land development regulations which allow flexibility and Borough discretion in the conversion of dwellings to non-residential uses.

OBJECTIVE: Oppose attempts to reduce or eliminate on-street parking along Kutztown Road, as this is essential for the viability of Borough’s business district.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate current standards for off-street parking to determine areas where they may be inadequate or excessive. Consider reduction of requirements in areas where I on-street parking is available. I Goal 5: Mniirtain a safe and eficient transportation network OBJECTIVE: Require new construction to maintain a clear separation between I pedestrian and vehicular traffic. OBJECTIVE: Pursue PennDOT in regard to levelling the Elizabeth Avenue viaduct over the abandoned rail line.

OBJECTIVE: Eliminate drainage problem on County Street.

I I I I I 1 I I x-5 This chapter provides special emphasis upon planning for the development of local commerce and industry. While this chapter is not meant to be a full-blown market study of the Borough, it provides direction in the event that the Borough should decide to pursue such a study. We will consider how to retain and enhance local commercial and industrial activities and what new non- residential development is likely.

The Character of Economic Development in the Borough The issue of the Borough’s economic development was discussed in some detail in Chapter Six. In that chapter, the importance of manufacturing was clearly demonstrated: manufacturing jobs account for more than half of the locally available jobs, and nearly a third of working Borough residents are employed in manufacturing. The existing land use map in Chapter Nine provides further evidence of the prominence of industry in the Borough. As this map shows, industrial activity occupies large, consolidated tracts while commercial enterprises are much smaller and I are generally dispersed along Kutztown Road. The lack of large commercial enterprises in the Borough is due principally to its setting. Fifth Street Highway, just west of the Borough in iI Muhlenberg Township is one of the major shopping areas in Berks County with many shops, restaurants, and several malls (including a major regional mall) along a heavily travelled, multi- lane street which provides a high level of visibility. In addition, the city of Reading and its i~I numerous shopping outlets are within a few minutes‘ drive. With this level of retail and service activity in such proximity, only the most local (or most specialized) retail needs need to be II accommodated within the Borough.

II PlanninP- for Economic Development We have established that the topic of economic development may be divided into the two broad I areas of commercial development and industrial development. The active pursuit of additional commercial development is not likely to meet with much success. The Borough is not in a I position to compete with the highly visible, well established commercial districts in the immediately surrounding area. No place in the Borough offers the level of access and visibility that the Fifth Street Highway does, nor is there any vacant land of sufficient size to provide space I for a major new commercial development. Appropriately, the commercial activity in the town’s

XI-1 I I business district is locally oriented. These businesses appear to be generally prosperous, and there are few vacancies among the Borough’s commercial structures. It is doubtful if the Borough would gain any significant benefit from participation in a ”Main Street’’ program, as they tend to I focus on the health of a town’s commercial area.

I Chapter Fifteen, Future Land Use, introduces the concept of a second commercial district. This district would serve two functions. First, it would provide the Borough with additional tax I revenue. Secoiid, it would buffer residential areas from the industrial area. This district would be designed to accommodate small-scale uses in order to avoid worsening the current parking I and traffic situations in this part of town. Within the area shown for this new district, there are a number of existing residences. It is intended that these would gradually be converted to small commercial enterprises and offices, compatible in scale to the residential uses while compatible in use with the industrial areas.

I If it is not possible - or necessarily desirable - to accommodate any significant new commercial development, then we must focus our efforts on industrial development. Fortunately, this aspect I of the local economy looks quite promising. The industrial operations sited in the Borough include several large operations and a number of smaller ones. Relations with most of the I industry operators is generally cordial, although there are some undeniable areas of conflict. In the course of conducting research for this document, it was revealed that some of the local I industries are planning to expand; none indicated that they were considering leaving the Borough. The space constraint which renders infeasible major new commercial development I applies to new industrial development as well. Unless one of the existing operations should leave the Borough, no itnu major industrial operation is likely. Expunsion of existing operations is a distinct possibility, not only from the perspective of their fiscal strength, but from the equally I practical aspect of available land: many of the industrial operations are adjacent to sizable open I areas, usually within their own tracts. Problems to be Addressed I At this point, it appears that the most sigruficant obstacle to overcome is parking. There is a widely perceived parking problem in the southern part of the Borough, with factory workers in I competition with residents for on-street spaces. Many of the streets in this part of town are posted for one- and two-hour parking only during business hours. If new commercial and office I uses - even very small ones - were added here in converted homes, the problem would become worse, since many of these residences have no potential to provide off-street parking. In order to I I XI-2 I

assess this issuc more accurately, a walking survey of this neighborhood was made as part of this I plan. This survey was made during business hours, in the early afternoon of a weekday. It was noted that, while there are a few blocks where cars are closely parked (the area around the I Boscov’s warehouse most notably), there are also many places where parking is available, including large, under-utilized lots. We have concluded that the problem is not parking as much I as it is inefficient utilization of land. This seems to suggest a course of action, outlined in the following summary. I Summarv & Recommendation Our consideration of the economic development potential has made the following observations I and generated the following conclusions. I 0 Data presented in Chapter Six indicated that the retail sales and service segments of the economy were growing and the manufacturing sector was declining. These data were from a I county perspective. 0 More locally, it does not seem feasible for the Borough to aggressively pursue commercial I development. The surrounding areas of Muhlenberg Township and the City of Reading already feature extensive commercial development. The Borough cannot compete with the scale of development found in these surrounding locations due to its disadvantages in the I areas of access and availability of developable land. Successful commercial development in the Borough will likely be limited to those enterprises which can be conducted in a relatively I small space, have little parking demand, and either meet the daily needs of Borough residents or are so highly specialized that they are not already accommodated in the region.

I 0 Due to the character of local and regional retail activity, we question the usefulness of I participation in a Main Street program. . The local industries, principally manufacturing, seem vigorous. During the interview process, the manufacturing representatives we spoke to all indicated a desire to remain in the I Borough, and several noted a desire to expand.

0 New and expanding businesses face constraints of space for both building and parking. I However, a survey of the neighborhood revealed that the problem may not be as severe as

. many perceive it to be. On-street parking congestion is limited to a few blocks, and the I industrial areas include many open areas which appear to be underutilized.

0 If the Borough decides to pursue economic development more aggressively, we recommend I the preparation of a detailed land utilization survey and plan of the industrial portion of I XI-3 I town. Ideally, this survey should actively involve representatives of the industrial operations. The survey portion of such a document should:

1. Define the study area. At a minimum, this should be the Borough land south of Duke Street and west of Earl Street.

2. Mapping should include parcel lines and show ownership of tracts. In addition, areas which are occupied by structures and surfaced areas should be delineated. The function of the surfaced areas should also be identified: parking, loading, or other. It is likely that there will be some overlap of function.

3. Street conditions. Which streets allow on-street parking? Are there any time limitations on parking? How wide are the cartways? Which streets are used by large trucks for access to the industrial operations?

The plan portion of the document should, as a minimum, address the following issues. Of course, other relevant items may become evident during the planning process.

1. Efficient utilization of existing open areas. What areas are needed for loading? How do the loading areas affect traffic patterns on the surrounding streets? What lands are most feasible for expansion of structures? Which areas should be dedicated for srirface parking?

2. Optimum use of parking areas. Many of the areas now used for parking are unmarked. Defining parking spaces will probably result in more efficient use of space. The parking policies of the various firms should also be evaluated. Are parking areas reserved? Are employees charged for using a company-owned I parking lot?

3. What is the feasibility of shared parking? Would two or more of the industries in I the area be willing to share a lot? Would it be feasible for the Borough to manage such a lot? 1 We believe that a study such as this one would be valuable, as it would answer many concerns about the availability of space. Currently, these concerns are ill-defined and I generally discourage the expansion of existing uses and the introduction of new uses. In addition, it would provide an opportunity for a co-operative effort among local industries I and the Borough. If the Borough wishes to pursue a study such as this one, they could investigate the availability of professional or financial assistance from the County I Planning Commission, the Berks County Chamber of Commerce, Berks County Community Development, and/or the Berks County Industrial Development Authority. 1 XI-4 I I I Introduction I The variety and quality of the facilities and services available in any given community have a direct impact upon its quality of residential life. As described in Chapter Seven, private entities I provide many facilities and services, dealing directly with Borough residents. Obviously, the Borough has limited influence on any planning that deals with these services. For this reason, this chapter will focus upon the areas where the Borough either has some influence or direct I control. These services include municipal administration, emergency services (especially police), the library, water supply, and sewerage. The Borough is also a provider of recreational facilities, I which are described in greater detail in Chapter Thirteen.

I The policies expressed in this chapter are based upon the anticipated demands of the projected population and the extent to which the Borough controls the operation of the facilities or services I in question. As discussed in Chapter Five, the Borough’s population is declining, and is expected to continue to decline for some years yet. I Municiual Administration Currently, Borough-owned facilities include the Borough Hall on Kutztown Road and the I Borough Garage on Hawthorne Street. These facilities are sufficient for the current and anticipated administrative needs of the Borough. At this time, the Borough does not anticipate I any expansion of either the administrative staff or the road crew. No new services are to be ._ provided, nor are any existing services to be discontinued, unless costs rise more than expected. I Anticipated major purchases are limited to replacement of existing equipment, as needed.

I Emergencv Services The topic of emergency services includes ambulance, fire protection, police, and emergency I management. Ambulance service and fire protection are provided by private organizations, not under the authority of the Borough. To date, service provided has been most satisfactory, and there is no compelling reason for the Borough to become directly involved with the provision of I either service. In contrast, the Police Department is a branch of the municipal government. During the survey that we conducted earlier, the Borough Police Department was described as a I real asset to the community: residents and business owners alike were pleased with the quality of 4 XII-1 I service provided. Currently, renovations are being made to the basement level of Borough Hall (formerly used as a community center) to accommodate police use. No new full-time personnel are anticipated, hut the Borough expects to retain additional part-time staff in the near future.

There has been some discussion with Muhlenberg Township and the Borough of Temple in regard to merging their police departments into a single multi-municipal force. The Township force is significantly larger than either of the Borough forces, and it seems logical that the three municipalities together could provide a higher level of service than any of the municipalities could alone. Naturally, the Borough favors actions which foster efficient, high-quality services, but these municipalities have been unable to reach an agreement on the mechanics of a multi- municipal administration. During the survey portion of the planning process, several respondents noted that they liked the sense of identity which an independent Borough Police I Department provides. Also, the Borough is still able to provide funds for the operation of the department. Lacking any political or fiscal reason for change, it is unlikely that the Police I Department will experience any radical re-organization within the horizon of this Comprehensive Plan. However, Borough Council is not averse to such re-organization and would respond I positively if approached by a citizen's group or any of the entities involved.

The emergency management function of the Borough is achieved by the appointment of an Emergency Management Co-Ordinator and the adoption and regular update of an Emergency Management Plan. This document provides standard operating procedures for the Co-Ordinator and other municipal personnel to deal with a variety of emergency situations, including weather emergencies, chemical spills, and nuclear incidents. The Plan also contains a roster of local emergency service providers, utility companies, and local businesses that regularly have hazardous materials on-site. The Borough has a Plan in place and revises it regularly.

The Borough does not exercise direct influence over library operations. However, Council readily acknowledges that having the library in the Borough is a sigruficant asset. The library has I concerns about the adequacy of the space available at their current facility. Also, Muhlenberg Township has shown interest in the relocation of the library to a new site in the western part of I the Township. The Borough strongly objects to this move. In its present location, the library is easily accessible to the school complex and is also within walking distance of many nearby I residents who do not have access to a car. The Borough would prefer the library to remain in its

MI-2 1 I present location. Borough officials are currently exploring the potential of using Keystone Program funding (formerly known as Key'93) to assist the library with necessary expansion. If, for some reason, library officials decide to leave the current structure, the Borough would support I a relocation to some other location, provided that the new location was easily accessible to 1 Borough residents. Water Supply I All parts of the Borough have access to water supply, supplied by the Muhlenberg Township Water Authority. Based upon the population and economic trends noted earlier in this I document, we anticipate little change in demand for water within the Borough. Borough officials are not aware of any problems with the quality of the water supply or the administration of the I Authority that may be attributed to Authority policy. The Borough has every intention of maintaining a co-operative working relationship with the Muhlenberg Township Authority.

I Sewerage Like water supply, sewerage is already provided to all parts of the Borough, so any question of I expansion is irrelevant. There may be some increased demand for service if Borough industries expand, as some of them have indicated is their wish. Sewage from Laureldale is treated by I facilities owned and operated by the City of Reading.

I In the summer of 1994, while this Plan was being developed, the State Department of Environmental Resources (DER) imposed a moratorium on new sewer connections to the City of I Reading system. This moratorium was imposed in the midst of allegations of mismanagement and improper disposal of effluent. Two years earlier, Muhlenberg Township expressed their doubts in their '1 992 Comprehensive Plan about the benefit of continuing its relationship with the I City for the provision of sewage treatment. To date, Laureldale, Muhlenberg, and the Borough of Temple have djscussed the possibility of merging to form their own operating authority with I their own treatment facility. Laureldale is still open to such action. The Borough's principal concern regarding the provision of virtually any service is cost-effectiveness. That is, is the I service provided efficiently and at a reasonable price. If it is determined that building a new treatment facility and setting up a new treatment authority is an efficient solution, then I Laureldale will most definitely support such a plan. Implementing an action such as this one would require updating the Act 537 (sewage facilities) Plans of the Boroughs and the Township. I

XII-3 Summarv This chapter has addressed five (5) separate facets of community facilities and services. The conclusions of each are summarized below.

MUNICIPAL ADMlNlSTRATlON Existing facilitiesat Borough Hall and the maintenance garage on Hawthorne Street are sufficient through the horizon of this Plan insofar as space and personnel are concerned. No new construction or purchases of major equipment are anticipated, except as may be necessary to replace current items. 1 EMERGENCY SERVICES The only emergency service provided directly by the Borough is police protection. The I police dqpartment is headquartered at Borough Hall. The police facility is currently being expanded; however, this is not an addition to the building but a renovation of a 1 previously unused part of the building. No additional full-time hires are anticipated for the department, but some additional part-time officers may be retained. The Borough is I open to discussion with nearby municipalities concerning the creation of a multi- municipal police department. However, local residents are apparently pleased with the I current quality of police protection, and the cost of maintaining the department has not unduly strained municipal resources. Lacking any compelling reason to alter the current I arrangement, the Borough will not actively pursue a multi-municipal department.

LlBRARY I The library is not a Borough service, but the Borough government provides some support to the library and anticipates continuing to do so. The Borough opposes moving the I library to any location which would be less convenient to Borough residents, particularly children, although it recognizes that the current facility is rapidly becoming obsolete. The I Borough is exploring obtaining Keystone Program funding on behalf of the library.

‘I WATER SUPPLY No change is anticipated in the administration or physical infrastructure of the water I supply system, currently owned and operated by the Muhlenberg Township Authority. No significant change in water use is anticipated in the near future. I I 1 XI-4 SEWERAGE Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal are provided by the City of Reading. Recent problems with City system resulted in a moratorium on new connections. As a result of I the moratorium, there has been discussion among the Borough, Temple, and Muhlenberg Township to consider the feasibility of creating a new Authority with a new sewage 1 treatment facility somewhere in Muhlenberg Township. This is not a new idea, but the current situation with Reading has made it seem particularly relevant at this time. The I Borough does not intend to assume a leadership role in such discussion, as their needs are currently met and there is little in the way of new construction requiring additional I treatment capacity. However, as always, Borough Council is interested in any change that would increase the quality and efficiency of Borough services at a reasonable cost. I I 1 I I

I I I ‘D

XII-5 7&%2?4%:

Introduction For a densely developed Borough like Laureldale, the value of plans addressing ”open space and recreation” may seem of little use: although the density of population may have an obvious need for such facilities, the ability of these communities to provide them within a nearly built-out jurisdiction must be questioned. However, Laureldale has a remarkable open space asset in the form of its most recent annexation: a 73-acre piece of ground we have referred to elsewhere in this document as the ”Laurel Hill area.” A portion of this land is already developed for recreational use and is generally known as Laureldale Community Park; all of it is owned by the Borough outright.

There are essentially two (2) goals for this plan chapter. First is the appropriate development of the Laureldale Community Park. Although Borough funds are limited, outside funding is available which is limited to the development of open space and recreational facilities. Utilization of this funding in pursuit of a coherent, well-organized recreational development plan for the I tract could result in a tremendous asset to both the Borough and the surrounding areas. The . second goal relates to other recreational needs of Borough residents. Although the community I park has tremendous potential, it is only one area, located at the eastern extremity of the municipality, and it is not able to meet all of the recreational needs of the Borough residents. Specifically, there is a need for facilities oriented for use by smaller children, such as playgrounds 1 and tot-lots which are within walking distance of the residential areas.

I The Borough’s need for recreational facilities has been analyzed using the nationally recognized standards of the National Recreation and Parks Association (”A). These standards are based I upon the type of park and the population served by the park. The four types of park defined by the NRPA are regional, sub-regional, community, and neighborhood. Typically, most state and 1 national parks are regional parks, county parks are sub-regional parks, community parks are operated by individual municipalities, and neighborhood parks are smaller playgrounds, also I usually municipally run. For this reason, regional and sub-regional parks are discussed below, but no recommendations for future provision are made, as such provision would be beyond the I scope of the Borough‘s responsibility.

XIII-1 The population projections for the Borough established in Chapter Five of this Plan give a basis for application of the NRPA standards to estimate future need. As part of the application of these standards to the Borough, this chapter includes a brief inventory of the parks which serve Borough residents. For the recreational areas located in the Borough, this inventory is more detailed, providing information on the facilities available and their condition.

In contrast to recreational facilities, there are no "standards" for the preservation of open space. Rather, open space goals are usually defined by a municipality's position on environmental preservation, protection of natural resources, preservation of prime agricultural soils, economic development and growth goals, and limitations to development imposed by conditions such as floodplains, wet soils, steep slopes, and ease of access. In general, preservation of stream corridors, wetlands, and steep slope areas are appropriate, regardless of the density of development, simply because utilization of such areas for building is typically difficult and has a negative impact upon both the environment and nearby lands.

Standards for Recreational Areas I The NRPA has established four (4)types of park, based upon size, facilities provided, and the number of people in the park service area. These are regional parks, sub-regional parks, I community parks, and neighborhood parks.

REGIONAL PARKS are the largest facilities. The regional parks which serve Laureldale serve all I of southeastern Pennsylvania. Because of their size and significance, regional parks are typically owned and operated by the federal or State governments. These parks often accommodate those I outdoor activities which are beyond the resources of most local governments due to the need for large areas of land or water. Camping and boating are two such activities. The State Gamelands I may be considered a specialized type of regional park, accommodating principally hunting, although other some passive recreation activities (hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, 1 observation, etc.) may be accommodated as well. The following regional parks have service areas which include Laureldale: French Creek State Park in Berks and Chester Counties, Nolde Forest Environmental Education Center (a special facility in the State Park system) in Cumru Township, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site adjacent to French Creek Park, and Blue Marsh Lake National Recreation Area. There are also a number of State Gamelands and major hiking trails, including the Appalachian and Horseshoe Trails, within the 60-minute radius.

XIII-2 REGIONAL PARK STANDARDS: Acreage ...... 20 acres/1000 persons Minimum Size ...... 1,000 acres Fervice Radius ...... 60 minutes driving time Maximum Population Served ...... n/a

SUB-REGIONAL PARKS are smaller than the regional facilities and are typically under County administration. Hiking trails, preserve areas, and improved fields for active recreation are appropriate facilities for sub-regional parks.

The only County recreational area which includes Laureldale in its service area is the Tulpehocken Creek Valley Park, extending along the Tulpehocken Creek corridor from Reading to Blue Marsh Lake. SUB-REGIONAL PARK STANDARDS: Acreage ...... 8.5 acres/1000 persons Minimum Size ...... 100 acres Service Radius ...... 15 minutes driving time I Maximum Population Served ...... 100,000

1 COMMUNITY PARKS provide a local place for group and individual sports and exercise, both casual and organized. They serve local outdoor recreation needs on a regular basis. Both active 1 and passive uses are accommodated, the former through the provision of the necessary improved fields or courts. In some cases, including Laureldale, these facilities are available in association i with public schools. COMMUNITY PARK STANDARDS: Acreage ...... 4.5 acres/1000 persons Pvlinimum Size ...... 20 acres I Service Radius ...... 5 minutes driving time (appx. 2 miles) I Maximum Population Served ...... 25,000

'The Muhlenberg School District campus provides community-level facilities to the residents of I Laureldale, Temple, and Muhlenberg Township. Naturally, the availability of these facilities is limited to times when school is not in session or the facilities are not otherwise being used for I school-related activities. The recreational portion of the campus covers approximately eighty (80) acres and is shard by the Muhlenberg Primary, Middle, and Senior High Schools, and the C.E. I Cole Intermediate School. Laureldale Community Park is also a community-level park - although it is nearly large enough to be a sub-regional park. While this park is available to Borough I residents at all times, it lacks the range of facilities provided at the campus - facilities which it needs in order to fulfill the function of either a community or sub-regional park. I XIII-3 I I

1 Between the two facilities, Laureldale has no needs for additional community park acreage for the foreseeable future. The entire Borough lies within the two-mile service radius of both parks. I Insofar as recreational facilities are concerned, development of the Laureldale Community Park is the principal concern of the Borough. The Borough population is well below the maximum to be I served by a comniunity park, but both facilities are also readily accessible to densely populated ~I areas of Muhlenllerg Township. Realistically, the needs of this population must be included too. NEZGHBORHOPD PARKS accommodate recreation close to home. In rural areas, the space I1 needs for this type of park are usually deemed to be met by the yard areas of the individual residential lots. However, in more densely populated areas like Laureldale, these facilities are an important component of the local quality of life. Neighborhood parks should provide exercise I and sitting areas for adults, play areas for children, improved courts for activities like basketball or tennis, and miilti-purpose open areas. I NEIGHR~RHOODPARK STANDARDS: Acreage ...... 3.5 acres/1000 persons Minimum Size ...... 5 acres per park 1 Service Radius ...... 12 minutes walking time (appx. 41 mile) I Maximum Population Served ...... 5,000 The only facility in the Borough which may be considered a neighborhood park is the Hawthorne I Street playground. With an area of 3.3 acres, it is somewhat smaller than the recommended minimum size. The service radius covers most of the Borough: the southern, eastern, and western I edges are beyond the half-mile radius recommended for this park type. However, of these areas, only the western end of town has a sigruficant population. Knowing that the Borough population I is approximately 3,500, we may reasonably assume that the population of the service area is around 3,000. By this measure as well, there is a neighborhood park deficiency.

I The difficulty in addressing the neighborhood park need lies in the lack of open land within the Borough. The needs of residents at the western end of town could be addressed by playground I area(s) at the Laureldale Community Park. The southern end of the Borough is largely industrial, so it may be argued that there is really no need for a recreational facility here, even though it is I beyond the service area of any park. The remaining unserved area -bound by Bellevue Avenue, Kutztown Road, and the borough line - is so extensively developed, that there is virtually no I space for a new park facility. Consideration was given to making a ”vest-pocket”park on the lands associated with the Borough’s pump station at the comer of Belmont and Noble. This was

XIII-4 I

deemed impractical due to the small amount of land available and a recurring odor problem I associated with the operation of the pump station. It appears that there is no satisfactory I resolution to the park deficiency problem in this part of the Borough. SUB-NEIGHBORHOOD parks are a fifth variety which has not been evaluated in any depth here. I This designation describes recreational areas which serve individual apartment projects or urban areas dominated by multi-unit housing or other housing at such density that there are no I individual yard areas. Although Borough development is considered urban density, the homes still have privatc yards to accommodate the most basic needs for outdoor space addressed by this I park type. There is no need for sub-neighborhood parks at this time. If a multi-unit development should ever be proposed for the Borough, the developer of the project will be required to I accommodate the recreational needs of the anticipated residents. Standards for Recreational Facilities I As with recreational areas, the NRPA has also developed standards for the provision of recreational facilities. Within this section, we will analyze the provision of those facilities I appropriate for the Borough. Specifically, we will consider guidelines for the provision of baseball and softball fields, football/soccer fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, volleyball I courts, and picnic areas. Standards for recreational trails are not included here. I BASEBALL arid SOFTBALL FIELDS Standard field sizes: regulation hardball 2.8 acres junior hardball 1.4 acres regulation softball 1.8 acres I junior softball 0.8 acre

Capacitv: I 90 persons per field per day, based upon 18 persons per field times a daily turnover of 5.

Standard: I 0.5 fields per 1,000 population Standard applied to Laureldale: Two baseball/softball fields are needed to accommodate the anticipated Borough I population from the present through the year 2020.

I FOOTBALL, SOCCER, and MULTI-PURPOSE FIELDS Standard field sizes: regular football 2.0 acres touch football 1.4 acres I regulation soccer 1.4 acres

XIII-5 Capacitv: 88 persnns per field per day, based upon 22 persons per field times a daily turnover of 4. Number of persons per field varies depending upon the sport.

Standard: 0.7 fields per 1,000 population

Standard apulied to Laureldale: Three faotball/soccer fields are needed to accommodate the anticipated Borough population from the present through the year 2020.

BASKETBALL C(-)URTS --Standard court size: regulation full court 0.2 acres

Capacity: 72 persons per court per day, based upon 12 persons per court times a daily turnover of 6.

Standard: 0.4 courts per 1,000 population

Standard apulied to Laureldale: Two basketball courts are needed to accommodate the anticipated Borough population from the present through the year 2020.

I TENNIS COURTS Standard court size: two regulation courts 0.25 acre I Cauacitv: 16 persons per court per day, based upon 3.2 persons per court (on average) times a daily I turnover of 5. Standard: 0.5 fields per 1,000 population

I Standard auplied to Laureldale: Two tennis courts are needed to accommodate the anticipated Borough population from i the present through the year 2020.

VOLLEYBALL COLIRTS I Standard court size: regulation court 0.1 acre Lawn areas and multi-purpose fields may be used as well as 1 regulation sand courts. Cauacitv: I 60 persons per court per day, based upon 12 persons per court with a daily turnover of 5. 1 Xm-6 I I

Standard: I 0.4 courts per 1,000 population. Standard applied to Laureldale: Two volleyball courts are needed to accommocdte the anticipate1 Borough population I from the present through the year 2020.

I PlCNIC AREAS Picnicking occurs as an end in itself as well as an adjunct to other recreational activities. It may occur with or without special facilities. Designated picnic areas may be as simple I as a few scattered picnic tables or may more elaborate, including pavilions and kitchen facilitiec. Designated picnic areas should be located fifty to one hundred feet from parking areas; trash receptacles should be close enough to be convenient for use, but not so close that they create a nuisance for the picnickers. Firepits and barbecue grills should I be located to minimize dangers of fire in proximity to trees and structures. Ideally, running water and convenient lavatory facilities should be available.

I Within designated picnic groves, there should be an average of 10 tables per acre with one fireplace or grill for every two tables. Group picnic areas may have a density of up to I 25 tables per acre. Capacitv: 10.5 persons per picnic table or site per day, based upon a maximum of 7 persons per table times a daily turnover of 1.5.

I Standard: No population-based standard has been established for picnic areas. I Figure 13.1 PU 8 LIC RECREA TIONAL FA ClLITlES

I This chart compares existing facilities with the NRPA standards described in the preceding text and identifies what deficiencies exist. Need is based upon population for the year 2020.

I Laureldale Hawthorne Muhlenberg TOTAL Facilitv TvDe Comrn. Park St. Plavand. Sch.Dist. NEEDED DEFICIENCY I basebalVsoftball diamond 1 2 6 2 NONE footbalVsoccer/multi-purpose field - 2 3 1 basketball court 1 2 3 NONE I tennis court 8 2 NONE volleyball court 4 2 NONE I picnic area 2 pavilions 1 n/a nla playground 1 1 1 n/a nla

I SOURCE: July 1994 field survey by SDE, Inc. (Laureldale); June 1992 report of Berks County Planning Commission, field-checked by SDE, Inc. (School District); standards from National I Recreation and Parks Association. I m-7 I I

Public recreational facilities are concentrated at three different locations in the Borough: the I community park, the Hawthorne Street playground, and the Muhlenberg School District campus. In the following chart, only those facilities which are available to the general public are included. I As noted earlier in this chapter, access to the School District facilities is limited to the times established by the School District. Naturally, public access is Limited by the school's I responsibility to make sure that the needs of the students and school sponsored recreational programs are addressed first. I Because of the limited access to school facilities, we must focus upon the facilities at the Community Park and the playground. Below is an inventory of the facilities at these two I locations. The terms used to assess the condition of the equipment are defined as follows: EXCELLENT means that the equipment is obviously new or nearly new, is properly installed, I and shows little or no signs of wear; VERY GOOD indicates that the equipment is not new but has been maintained such that signs of wear are minimal; GOOD describes structurally sound I equipment that shows obvious wear and needs minor cosmetic maintenance; FAIR indicates structurally sound but deteriorating equipment which is in need of minor maintenance; POOR I equipment is oh*iouslydeteriorated and potentially hazardous.

LAURELDALE C0MMUNl"YPARK: I 1baseball diamond with backstop and two (2) aluminum bleacher units. Fenced and lit. Lockable equipment storage bin. VERY GOOD. Picnic pavilion with kitchen facilities and thirteen (13) picnic tables. Also has two I (2) barbecue grills, which are undersized for a pavilion of this size. VERY GOOD. Picnic pavilion without kitchen facilities; has four (4) picnic tables and one (1) I small grill. VERY GOOD. 1 dav-ound area with miscellaneous climbing structures. VERY GOOD. COMMENTS: This facility has several paved parking areas and easy access to the Borough via Elizabeth Avenue, in spite of being at the far eastern edge of the I nwnicipality. Usefulness is diminished by the lack of rest room facilities. A man-made pond adjacent to both the baseball diamond and the larger picnic pavilion is unattractive and detrimental to the park experience: it is almost I choked with algae, and droppings from the ducks and geese which populate the vicinity create a health hazard. The majority of the park land is undeveloped.

I HAWTHORNE STREET PLAYGROUND: 1 baseball diamond with aluminum bleachers and backstop. Not lit. GOOD. 1 baseball diamond with backstop. No bleachers; not lit. FAIR I 1 basketball court, paved and lit. GOOD. Playground- area with various equipment. 3 picnic tables in the area as well. Condition of equipment varies from FAIR to VERY GOOD. Multi-use building with storage, windows for concession activity, and some 1 indoor recreation (ping-pong tables, etc.). GOOD. I XIII-8 I

COMMENTS: Facility is well-located to serve nearly all of the Borough. Severe I lack of off-street parking; no rest room facilities. Property is adjacent to Borough -i garage, which makes maintenance easier and provides a Borough presence at all 1 times.

As shown by Figure 13.1, conformance with the NRPA standards for provision of recreational I facilities is heavily dependent upon the school district facilities. As we have noted, these facilities are not availablc for use by the general public at all times, nor are they administered by the I Borough. Excluding the school facilities, only baseball diamonds are available in sufficient number. Due to the amount of open area still available at the Laureldale Community Park, it is I possible that the space to meet these needs is already available.

I The Laureldale Community Park has been the subject of planning exercises prior to this one. One of these, developed in January 1976, features a wide variety of facilities: two tennis courts, a I baseball diamond, three playground areas, three picnic pavilions, two open picnic areas, an amphitheater, a designated toboggan and sledding area, ski trails with two lifts and a shelter, camping facilities, open play areas, and extensive wooded areas. Before creating yet another I development plan for this land, it would be wise to consider the merits of past proposals.

I Open Space As noted in the introduction of this chapter, open space needs are not typically a concern of small I urban communi ties such as Laureldale. However, the open space available at the Laureldale Community Park is a rare resource which must be considered. Already the area is partially I developed with formal recreational facilities, and it is possible that there will be more to meet the recreational needs identified in the earlier sections of this chapter. The severity of the slopes on I much of the tract has limited development to date. I Recreational trails are another type of open space amenity. In densely developed areas such as Laureldale, the provision of such trails is usually a non-issue. However, the abandoned rail line which bisects the town is currently proposed for development as a recreational trail. The rails-to- I trails concept has been used in a number of communities to transform abandoned railbeds from undevelopable eyesores into community assets. It has now been several years since Muhlenberg I Township began to pursue trail development of the former rail corridor. At the beginning of the process, representatives of the Township and Laureldale met to walk the trail and discuss I possible improvements. Since that time, complications have become evident. The first of these concerns the Elizabeth Avenue overpass. As described in Chapters Eight and Fourteen of this I 1 m-9 Plan, this viaduct over the old rail line is probably the most hazardous area in the Borough from the perspective of traffic safety. Levelling the viaduct to remove this hazard will render this part of the rail corridor unuseable for recreational use. Although the Borough supports the concept of a recreational trail, public safety concerns should more properly take precedence.

Another issue related to the trail is that of ownership. h fact, it is this issue rather than the road safety concern which has effectively halted plans for trail development to date. It appears that the railroad's interest in the property was something other than outright ownership. This issue has surfaced in other communities as well. It has been discovered that the railroad often used the property underlying the railbed under the terms of an indefinite lease: that is, a lease which gave the railroad perpetual of the property, but, in the event that the rail company ever abandoned the line, the ownership of the property would revert back to the adjoining landowner(s). With the lapse of time since the construction of the railroad, most of the adjoining property owners are unaware of their interest in the land. The Borough is understandably reluctant to purchase the railroad's interest in the property if there is a good chance that that interest will turn out to be nil.

I The Borough would welcome the development of a recreational trail along the abandoned rail line. Such a facility would eliminate what has become a weed-choked eyesore and would I enhance pedestrian and bicycle access within the Borough and to other nearby areas. However, the'issue of the Elizabeth Avenue viaduct is too critical to ignore, and the ownership question I raises too much uncertainty to justify active pursuit of trail development by the Borough.

Summary and Recommendations I For an urban area, the Borough is reasonably well-supplied with recreational facilities; the 73- I acre tract occupied by the Laureldale Community Park is a remarkable open space asset. When available park areas are analyzed by function, it is seen that the Community Park has I the potential to meet all needs customarily addressed by a community level park as defined by the NRPA. Land area is ample, but further development of the site is necessary.

I The Hawthorne Street playground, a neighborhood park, is well-located to serve much of the Borough. The park is in generally good condition, but some of the equipment requires minor I maintenance. I

XIII-IO 0 The analysis by function also reveals that there is a need for at least one (1) additional neighborhood park or playground in the Southwestern part of the Borough. Whether or not this need can be met is uncertain, as this part of town is almost completely developed.

0 Park areas have been analyzed according to available recreational facilities in addition to the space and hinction analysis. Specifically, the availability of baseball/softball diamonds, football/soccer fields, basketball courts, tennis courts, and volleyball courts have all been compared with the NRPA standards for the per capita provision of such facilities. In addition, .tve have considered the availability of picnic areas and playgrounds: facilities for which no optimum standards of availability have been established.

0 Existing needs at the present park facilities include better parking at Hawthorne Street and restroom facilities at both parks.

0 The facilities analysis reveals that the Borough is heavily dependent upon the Muhlenberg School District campus to meet recreational needs. If one includes the facilities at the school, then the onlv facility that will be needed by 2020 is a multi-purpose field suitable for football and soccer. However, since access to the school facilities is controlled by the Borough, a more accurate assessment excludes the school facilities. Without the school, the analysis reveals a current need for three multi-purpose fields, two basketball courts, two tennis courts, and two volleyball courts. Due to the demographics of the Borough, meeting this current need would also meet needs through 2020.

The Community Park holds the greatest promise for meeting the recreational needs of the Borough. Plans for the recreational development of the land have already been created, but their recommendations - now almost twenty years old - need to be balanced with the facility needs revealtd by this chapter. The prevalence of steep slopes on the tract limits the extent to which improved playing fields and courts can be provided here. Some of the facilities I proposed by the 1976 development plan took advantage of the sloped areas. Particularly I intriguing is the ski slope concept - a facility which could generate revenue for the Borough. 0 Officials generally agree that the pond at the Community Park is an eyesore and a potential hazard. Filling the pond will both eliminate the liability and provide level land which could I be used for other facilities. The resulting area would be too small for a football/soccer field, but would be ideally suited for sand volleyball courts (which would be least affected by the I potential subsidence of the new fill), or courts for basketball or tennis. I I xm - 11 0 The Borough supports the concept of a recreational trail along the abandoned rail line, but it J has some practical concerns. First, trail development would conflict with improvements to remedy the road hazard at the Elizabeth Avenue overpass. Second, the issue of ownership of I the corridor property has yet to be resolved. The Borough would not become involved in any project involving the rail corridor until the right to improve and to use it is clearly established.

Action Items

0 Identify and improve areas at Hawthorne Street for additional off-street parking. Establish maintenance schedule for equipment and facilities.

0 Amend existing development plans for the Community Park to address the needs for various recreational facilities identified here. Also consider the phasing, funding, and administration for new facilities. Begin with filling pond and creating improved courts for volleyball, basketball, and/or tennis.

XIII - 12 1 I I 7-P eczcz Introduction I As noted in Chapter Eight, the transportation inventory, the transportation plan is closely bound to the future land use plan. To some extent, the best use of land depends upon the amount of I traffic it produces and how well the transportation network can handle it. In Laureldale, like most American communities, issues related to public streets and private cars dominate ~I transportation policy. This chapter will review the findings of the inventory, present further discussion of the principal concerns, and identify improvements that the Borough may make as 11 resources allow. From the outset, we should make it clear that swift, free-flowing motor traffic is not the I overriding goal of this transportation plan. As a small urban area, there are many pedestrians, including children. Furthermore, the density of development in the business district is such that I vehicles may enter or leave the traffic stream at almost any point from on-street parking areas. Rather than speed, the Borough's priority is safety: both for motorists and pedestrians. Due to I the volume of vehicles and pedestrians, lower vehicle speeds enhance pedestriG safety. Therefore, a certain degree of congestion is desirable where it results in reduces vehicle speeds. I Findings of the Transportation Inventory The Borough streets form a grid surrounding generally rectangular blocks. Sidewalks I accommodate pedestrians along virtually all of the streets, and on-street parking is permitted in most locations. This pattern is common in towns and cities that developed at the time Laureldale I did. In this century, this pattern lost its popularity in favor of curvilinear arrangements, which were ostensibly more "natural" and avoided the perceived regimentation of the square city block. I However, in the past few years, the urban grid has had a renaissance and is once more fashionable under the guise of "neo-traditional" planning. In densely developed areas, the grid I arrangement disperses traffic efficiently, minimizing bottlenecks at major roads. At the same time, the frequent intersections and stops have the effect of reducing the speed of the traffic flow, I enhancing pedestrian safety. I The most prominent street in the Borough is Kutztown Road, a minor arterial running north-and- south on the west side of town. As the Existing Land Use map shows in Chapter Nine, this is the

XIV-1 1

area of densest development and the highest concentration of commercial uses. In short, this is I Laureldale's "Main Street." The Berks County Comprehensive Plan of 1991 stated that the volume of traffic on Kutztown Road was in excess of its intended capacity. Traffic is undeniably D heavy; however, business owners along the street see this as an asset. In the course of interviews conducted as part of the process of developing this plan, some local businessmen stated that they I would not rumit the traffic to be less. High traffic translates into high visibility, and congestion means slower sreeds and more opportunities for motorists to notice their business. Other than I Kutztown Road, the volume of traffic on Borough roads is well within design limits. I1 The Borough's street grid is not perfect: north-south travel is easier than east-west. The most prominent problem is the right-of-way for the former Reading Railroad rail line. The old railbed cuts the town in two: Elizabeth Avenue is the only crossing point within the Borough limits, and I the arch of the viaduct over the right-of-way is so steep that it severely limits sight distances at the adjacent intersections. There are a few other potentially hazardous locations caused by poor I design - mostly improperly aligned intersections -but they are much less severe than the I Elizabeth Avenue viaduct. The surface condition of the roads is generally very good. The principal exception is along I County Street between Gray and Montrose Streets. Stormwater drainage and groundwater surfacing and flowing across the cartway have accelerated the deterioration of the macadam: I The only public transit is daily bus service provided by BARTA. Several routes utilize Kutztown I Road; a less-frequent loop extends as far east as Oak Street via Elizabeth Avenue.

Sidewalks, which border most streets, amply accommodate pedestrians. The Borough is I currently in the process of modifying its sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Other modes of transit are not accommodated as well. There are no I dedicated bicycle routes; there is no rail transit.

I Princiual Transportation Concerns This section identifies the principal deficiencies of the transportation network and how the I Borough plans t? address them. During the course of the planning effort which produced this document, the problem of poor channelization at the intersection of Kutztown Road and I Elizabeth Avenue was successfully resolved. Previously, this had been the area of greatest I XIV-2 I borough concern relative to transportation safety. The remaining issues are discussed below in descending order of importance.

1. Elizabeth Avenue Viaduct Elizabeth Avenue is the only street that completely traverses the Borough from east to west. It is the only collector street on the eastern side of the Borough, and it is one of the few streets used for may transit. This street is obviously a crucial part of the Borough network. However, the viaduct that carries the street across the former rail line is steeply arched, severely impairing clear-sight distances at both the Rosedale Avenue and Montrose Avenue intersection<. Resolving this hazard will require co-operation between PennDOT and the owner of the rail right-of-way. Unfortunately, it is not certain who the current right-of-way owner is. When the rail line was originally established, the agreements between the railroad company and the owners of the adjacent properties varied considerably. In some cases the rail companv purchased land outright. In others, they were on ly granted an easement. These easements were not all easements in perpetuity. Some were for a period of time, such as 99 years; others were in perpetuity, but with the condition that the land would revert to the original property in the event that the line was abandoned. While this ownership issue is I more critical to the proposed recreational trail, it clearly affects this issue as well.

The actual work of levelling the roadway is also problematic. First, it will be necessary to identify alternative routes that can be used while this portion of Elizabeth Avenue is closed. The solution here would be relatively straightforward were it not for the fact that this street is one of the very few in the vicinity that cross the rail right-of-way. At this point it appears that Frush Valley Road is the most likely candidate for an alternative route. More ticklish is the question of the future use of the railbed. Muhlenberg Township has already examined the recreational potential of the railbed as a hiking and biking trail in some detail. Although no trail development has occurred to date, there is considerable interest. It has been determined that such a trail is eminently feasible and would be an asset to the community. Unfortunately, removing the arch would lower the roadbed to the extent that the railbed would not be passable for trail users. Developing an at-grade intersection for the road and the trail would be detrimental to the trail experience, but this inconvenience is far preferable to the hazard currently presented by the existing viaduct.

XIV-3 I

2. Drainage of County Street I The Borough has been aware of this problem for some time. At present, groundwater surfaces in the vicinity of the Gray Street intersection and flows along the southern curb until I it enters the storm sewer system at Montrose Avenue. The problem is worse during and immediately after storms, when rainwater exacerbates the condition. The most obvious I impact of this is the accelerated deterioration of the cartway. While this is unattractive and a maintenance problem for the Borough, it becomes truly dangerous in cold weather when ice 1 forms. I Currently, the Borough is addressing this problem by extending the storm sewer system as far as the Gray Street intersection. Funding is the major obstacle; the Borough is investigating the availability of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money to assist with this I project. If necessary, the Borough has determined to complete the project in increments, as I every segment completed will reduce the severity of the problem. 3. Poor Alignment of Street Intersections I Chapter Eight identified five poorly aligned and potentially hazardous intersections in the Borough. These five locations are in addition to the Elizabeth Avenue intersection with I Montrose and Rosedale Avenues. These problems are, for the most part, a result of streets that have an “offset” at their point of intersection with the cross street. In each case, one or I both of the streets involved is lightly travelled. Significantly, emergency service providers . did not name any of these locations as impediments to their work. These deficiencies are minor in comparison to the others noted in this chapter; their resolution has a low priority I with the Borough.

I summarv As noted in Chapter Eight, the road network is the most prominent and most important element I of the transportation infrastructure. The overall street pattern is a conventional urban grid, with Kutztown Road being the most prominent. The right-of-way for the former Reading Railroad I slices through the street network, leaving Elizabeth Avenue as the only crossing point within the Borough. Several of the streets are quite heavily travelled, and there are some areas of I intermittent congestion, but this is not generally perceived as a problem. Sidewalks bordering most of the streets make ample accommodation for pedestrian traffic. Surface condition of the I cartways is generally very good. I XIV-4 I As a Borough, development is dense, and there are a large number of pedestrians.

This chapter has identified three problem areas for Borough action. Elizabeth Avenue Viaduct. The arch of this viaduct over the former railbed - the only crossing within the Borough - obstructs sight lines at both of the adjacent intersections. Resolution will need to address the future use of the railbed.

County Street Drainage. The Borough will make improvements as finances allow.

Improvements to Intersection Alignments. The five intersections identified in Chapter Eight and discussed here are in addition to those associated with the Elizabeth Avenue viaduct. The deficiencies noted here are all relatively minor, and their correction is not a high priority with the Borough. If the opportunity should arise and if funds are available, they may be improved as necessary. Naturally, the priority of any of these would change if new development in the Borough or the Township resulted in a sigruficant increase in the level of traffic. I I

I I

I I I I I Introduction I I The future land use plan is probably both the most prominent and the most misunderstood element of a Comprehensive Plan. Its prominence is due to the fact that it represents a II culmination of the research and policy statements made in the other chapters of the Plan. The future land use map shows how those policies look on the ground. Everyone who looks at the I map can say, "this is how the Comprehensive Plan affects me." This map is often the source of misunderstanding as well. It is important that everyone understands that the map, like the rest of the Comprehensi\pe Plan, is a policy statement without the force of law. I I

Although it lacks regulatory authority in itself, the plan is the foundation for the regulatory 'I ordinances and codes which implement the plan. The future land use map, as part of this plan, has two functions. First, it illustrates the anticipated effect of municipal policy upon land use I patterns. Secondly, the map depicts the general arrangement of land uses to be promoted by the Borough through its zoning and development regulations. Of course, Laureldale and the I surrounding areas of Muhlenberg Township are almost fully developed already, and this plan has been designed with an awareness of that existing pattern of development. While we do not I anticipate dramatic change, change of some kind is inevitable over the course of time. This plan shows how the Borough intends to direct that change. I This chapter is organized as follows. The land use plans of Muhlenberg Township (from their Comprehensive Plan and from their Zoning Ordinance) are presented in order to give an idea of I> the setting within which the Borough functions. Next, we consider current Borough Zoning as representative of the current municipal planning philosophy. Thirdly, the land-use related goals I from the other chapters of this document are presented. Finally, the land use policies of this Plan are formally established. This portion of the chapter includes a map showing how these policies I will affect land use patterns in the Borough.

I Future Land Use Plans in Muhlenberg- Township The current Comprehensive Plan for Muhlenberg Township was adopted by their Board of I Commissioners in June 1992. Much like this Plan for Laureldale, the Muhlenberg Plan was dealing with a municipality that was already extensively developed. As we have already noted, I xv- 1 I I

the areas of the Township that surround the Borough are similar in character to the Borough, and I new development is possible only if existing structures are razed. The schematic future land use map which was included in the Future Land Use chapter is generally compatible with what is I proposed for the Borough in this chapter. The area north of the Borough, generally occupied by the community of South Temple I and extending as far east as Oak Street, will continue in moderate-density residential use. The area occupied by the school district campus is "institutional."

I 0 To the east, adjoining the park, most land is identified as "open/constrained." In other words, no development is anticipated here due to the constraints imposed by natural I conditions. The eastern most edge -between the Borough and the Alsace Township line - is set aside for low density residential development. These low-intensity uses are I compatible with the adjoining park area. The southeastern edge, adjoining the Borough's industrial area, is classified as industrial: I an obviously compatible match. The area of Gethsemane Cemetery, at the center-south of the Borough, is shown as institutional, indicating that the cemetery use is expected to be I ' continued. 0 The western side shows an area of potential conflict: of particular concern is the wedge of I land between the Borough and Route 222. The Township has identified this land for commercial use. Indeed, the area is in commercial use now as the rear of the Route 222 I highway commercial corridor. However, the adjoining part of the Borough is in residential use. Without buffering of some kind, residents have an unattractive view of I loading and service areas for the Route 222 shopping centers.

Zoning adjacent to Laureldale is generally compatible with the existing land use pattern. To the I ,west, the land is zoned to accommodate the various commercial uses found along Route 222. Most of the remaining areas of the Township adjacent to Laureldale are zoned for various I densities of residential use, including the lands occupied by the school district and the cemetery; I exceptions are limited to small areas zoned for industrial use which are already so used. I Current ZoninP in the Borough ,I The Borough's airrent Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 1975 and extensively amended in 1991. It establishes three (3) residential districts, a commercial district, an industrial district, and a recreational district. Floodplain areas are included in a special overlay district. The Ordinance is unusual for its vintage, for it accommodates "pure" zoning districts and eschews the I xv-2 I I I R-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I (CEMETARY1 I ADJACENT ZONING I BOROUGH OF LAURELDALE I BERKS COUNTY PENN SYLVANI A GRAPHIC SULT 1- I 550 FI. I \ L’ I I "cumulative" approach popular at that time. With cumulative zoning, there is a hierarchy of districts. In any given district, all of the uses permitted in more restrictive districts are allowed in addition to others specific to the purpose of the given district. For example, in an industrial district - usually the least restrictive district - all residential and commercial uses would be allowed. While this simplifies enforcement, it is generally considered bad planning. Allowing a mix of uses is not necessarily bad, but to allow uses of vastly different character within the same area leads to conflicts among neighbors, poor neighborhood quality, and defeats the whole purpose of zoning in the first place.

0 The R-1 Residential District covers more of the Borough than any other district, including the eastern and western ends and the blocks adjacent to cemetery along Grove Street. Uses are limited to single family detached dwellings and the uses that generally accompany them (garages, swimming pools, etc.) along with public uses. Schools, churches, cemeteries, home occupations (including professional offices), and apartment conversions are all permitted by special exception, a process which requires a hearing before the Zoning Hearing Board. Minimum lot size for this district is 5,000 square feet.

The R-2 Residential District includes four (4) separate areas across the Borough. These are I areas of generally higher density development, permitting residential lots to be as small as 4,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Permitted uses are similar to the R-1 district, except that I two-family dwellings are permitted in addition to the others. Townhouses (which have a permitted per-unit lot size of 1,800 square feet), nursing homes, and social clubs are I permitted here by special exception in addition to the uses permitted in the R-1 district.

The R-3 Residential District has a single location, covering four (4) blocks in the north- I central part of town. This district permits the highest density residential development, including garden apartments at a gross density of up to 12 units per acre. Single-family and I two-family attached dwellings are permitted by right; apartment buildings, conversions, and home occupations are permitted by special exception.

I The C Commercial District permits a comprehensive range of commercial uses in two (2) separate areas: the Kutztown Road corridor and along Elizabeth Avenue in the vicinity of the I old rail crossing. Uses that have larger land requirements (wholesaling and car dealers, for example) are permitted by special exception rather than by-right. Residences are permitted I only as accessory uses to permitted commercial uses. Minimum lot size is 9,000 square feet, but multiple'uses may occupy a single lot provided that there is at least 1,800 square feet of I land for each use. I xv-3 I The I Industrial District permits industrial and administrative operations by right in the southernmost part of the Borough. Retail sales and repair services are permitted by special exception. Minimum lot size is two (2.0)acres.

Finally, the RM Recreational and Municipal Activity District was created to accommodate the Laureldale Community Park. As its name indicates, this district permits recreational use and municipal buildings of all kinds.

Review of Land-Use-Related Goals from Other Chapters Most of the chapters of this Plan were organized such that they concluded with a section on planning issues. 11; many cases, these issues were related to land use. The following is a quick review of these issues.

Need tn identify underutilized properties ... accommodate new tises/users in existing striictirrcs ... large-scale business operations are not appropriate to the scale of the Borough ... tliejatter part of the Borough is well-stiitedfor development; the Lniirel Hill area (the I Comtriirnity Park) is too environmentally constrainedfor development ... the population of the Borough has been declining; this decline is expected to continue past the year 2000 ... the Boroiigli rteeds more indiistrinl and commercial activity to enhance its tax base ... local industries I are apparently stable; some have indicated that they need room to expand ... there is little vacant, dmelopnble lnnd in the Borough ... traffic volume is heavy, but not excessive ... new I traffic ,yircmtors slioiild not rely upon Kiitztom Rondfor sole access - although the level of trafic providrs high visibility, some infersectionsare congested ... the availability of public transit is I an asset to the community I In addition to the goal statements within the topical chapters, Chapter Ten, “Goals and Objectives,” included a number of objectives which have a bearing on this chapter. Under the goal of enhancing the Borough tax base: (1)Adopt development regulations that facilitate the I conversion of residential structures to non-residential use within specific areas where the new non-residential uses are most appropriate. (2) Adopt regulations that permit residential use in I combination with a commercial or office use within a single structure -by right in commercial areas and by special exception in residential areas. Another god of the plan is to preserve the /I small-town quality which has been identified by residents as one of Laureldale’s principal assets. Three more objectives are found here: (3) optimize recreational facilities, (4) require development to respect the scale of the community, and (5) eliminate conflicts between residential and

xv-4 industrial uses in industrial areas. The only land-use objectives under the third goal (to maintain the current high level of Borough services), relate to the development of the park area. Finally, the goal of supporting and enhancing the local business climate has three objectives that affect this chapter: (6) Identify areas of the Borough where the needs of commercial and industrial operations will have precedence over the needs of residential uses. (7)Adopt a Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance which allow flexibility in the conversion of dwellings to non- residential use. (8) Oppose attempts to reduce on-street parking along Kutztown Road, as this has been detemiined to be essential to the viability of the Borough’s business district.

Future Land Use Plan for the Borough Map 15.2 illustrates how these policies, if implemented, are expected to affect the pattern of land use in the Borough. There are no dramatic changes. The large areas now occupied by the school district, the parks, and the industrial community are essentially unchanged. The most sigruficant changes are in the commercial district. Here, we illustrate our recommendation for two distinct commercial districts in place of the current single district. The ‘’Mixed Commercial” area would be similar to the current “C”district, except that residential and non-residential uses would be permitted within the same structure by right as would conversions of residential structures to non-residential use. The “General Commercial” area would accommodate the more intense commercial uses that are currently permitted only as a special exception in the ”C” district; residential uses would be excluded from this area, as they currently are from the “C“ district. Note that a new commercial area has been defined in addition to those already established by the current Zoning Ordinance. This new area, for mixed commercial use, creates a buffer between the industrial area and the residential portions of the Borough. The intent here is to minimize the potential for conflict between residential and industrial uses. As commercial uses are introduced - most likely as conversions to existing dwellings - it is expected that there will be fewer and fewer residents, md that both the frequency and the severity of the conflicts among property owners will diminish. Residential areas are reduced only insofar as necessary to accommodate I the additional commercial areas. This reduction in space allocated to residential use is appropriate in light of the Borough’s diminishing population. I In summary, the land-use-related goals are to be addressed by the following actions. I 1) Establish a portion of the ”C” Commercial district where more intense commercial uses may be established by right instead of by special exception, as is currently the case. I I xv-5 I I

2) Expand t1ir area where smaller-scale commercial uses may be established by right. This I would specifically include the conversion of residential structures to non-residential use and the capacitv to incorporate dwelling u'nits and non-residential uses within the same structure.

I 3) Add a new area of commercially zoned land in order (a) to buffer residential uses from I industrial areas and (b)to encourage expansion of the Borough tax base. 4) Revise the $906 of the Zoning Ordinance, which addresses the conversion of single family

dwellings 11.1 multi-family dwellings. These regulations seem unnecessarily cumbersome. I Also, this woiild be an appropriate location to specify requirements for conversion from residential to non-residential use. Again, these should be clear and straightforward in order I to protect the interests of surrounding residents as well as simplify the process for those undertaking such activity.

I 5) Within commercial areas, enforce reasonable requirements for adequate off-street parking.

6) Preserve the recreational function of Laureldale Community Park; pursue any opportunity I which may arise to provide recreational facilities in the western part of the Borough. I I I I I I

I I ~I ~I I XV-6 I

I I J I Introduction __ I This final chapter is the culmination of the planning process: it is the point where the planning ends and the doing begins. Until this point, this document has evaluated a broad range of issues I and identified actions. This chapter will indicate where to start to turn the plan into reality.

This chapter has three parts. The first is a summary of the goals and objectives which have I already been established elsewhere in this document. This section will consider them in a different way, as it will consider potential areas of conflict among the objectives. The second part I is the energy conservation element. This element has been placed in this chapter rather than elsewhere in order to emphasize that conservation practices are ongoing and that they affect I virtually every municipal activity. The final portion of this chapter will present a strategy for pursuit of the objectives and will include a schedule that considers both the logical progression of activity and the priorities of the Borough. IDI

Reciprocal Compatibilitv of Municiual Goals 'I ' Five municipal goals were established in Chapter Ten. The following figure is a graphic representation of how they inter-relate. Arrows indicate where a given goal directly supports I another goal. For example, the arrow from "Support Commercial & Industrial Activity" to "Enhance Tax Base" shows that encouraging nonresidential uses to stay and expand in the I Borough will have the effect of increasing property values and thereby tax revenue.

I Figure 16.1 ' INTERRELATIONSHIP OF PLAN GOALS I ENHANCE - TAX BASE

I \ MAINTAIN / ENHANCE BOROUGHSERVICES I ISUPPORT COMM'L & 14 SAFE & EFFICIENT t/ I INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY TRANSPORTATION I XVI-1 I I

I In general, the Borough’s goals show a high degree of internal compatibility. We have identified only one area of potential conflict: although a safe, efficient transportation system will support I commercial and industrial activity, it is possible, although not certain, that the reciprocal relation will not be so compatible. As industrial and commercial activity expands, there will be more I vehicles - more hrge vehicles in particular - on the streets and competing for parking space. We anticipate that any negative impact would be on convenience and efficiency, not necessarily I safety. Note that the land utilization study recommended in Chapter Eleven is intended to focus upon this very issue.

I Energy Conservation in the Borough Establishing a municipal energy conservation policy has two parts. The first involves how the I municipality manages its own buildings and property. The second has a much wider impact, as it concerns the type of building and development which is allowed (or required) through I Borough regulations such as the Building Code, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. As the Borough is very nearly built-out, it is not realistic to expect I that revisions to the zoning or subdivision ordinance would result in any perceptible change. Nevertheless, there are some steps which the Borough may take to promote energy conservation. I The physical design of the Borough already has elements which are frequently noted as supportive of energy conservation. Specifically, the density of development, mix of residential and non-residential uses, and accommodation of pedestrians are all key elements in creating an environment which is less automobile-dependent and thereby I less wasteful of fuel. As we have discussed in earlier chapters, this development pattern will not only be retained, but will be enhanced. Although the previous text was I concerned with economics and aesthetics, such action will have an ecological benefit too. Manufacturers have responded to the public’s growing concern for the environment and energy conservation by creating modem appliances which are invariably more energy- efficient than the models which they replace. For this reason, it really is not necessary to I establidi the purchase of energy-efficient appliances as a municipal policy, as virtually any new appliance will be more efficient than whatever it replaces. However, we do recorrunend that the Borough adopt a Building Code which specifies appropriate I insulation for new structures and water efficient plumbing fixtures for new construction and renovations.

0 Landscaping has long been recognized as having a moderating impact upon micro- I climates and energy needs. Deciduous trees provide cooling shade for structures and parking areas during the summer, but still allow the sun to warm structures and surfaces during the winter when their leaves drop. In contrast, evergreen trees provide a dense I barrier along their entire height year ’round and are therefore suitable for providing visual harriers and windbreaks. Again, there are limited opportunities in the Borough for new construction, but landscaping requirements cun be applied to building and parking I lot renovations as well as new development. I XVI-2 I 1

I 1mplementatiog.Schedule The actions recommended throughout this Plan cannot be attempted all at once. For this reason, I these actions have been separated into short-range, interrnediate-range, and long-range activities. For our purposes, "short-range" indicates that work should begin no later than twelve months I after the adoption of this Plan. "Intermediate-range" actions could be undertaken within one to three years, and "long-range" activities are likely to be most practicable more than three years I hence. Some projects are shown as "ongoing." These are major activities which may extend over more than one of these categories.

I Short-Range Activities: Begin update of Zoning Ordinance revise district regulations to allow mix of residential and commercial uses in appropriate areas... I 0 revise district regulations to facilitate conversion of residences into commercial and office uses, where such uses are in agreement with the future land use I plan shown in this document. .. preserve regulations which reinforce the current density and scale of development... minimize conflicts between residential and non- I residential areas... 0 include performance standards which will protect residential areas from negative side-effects of I industrial activity... evaluate parking standards to determine if they are appropriate, particularly in light of availability (or lack I of availability) of on-street parking... Conduct land utilization study of industrial area identify under-utilizedproperties and consider I potential for industrial expansion and parking... identify areas where the needs of commercial and industrial operations will be allowed to have I precedence over those of residential uses... Continue street drainage improvements (ongoing) 'County Street... I Assist library with investigation of funding for expansion Develop Capital Improvements Pian

I Intermediate-Range Activities:Conclude Zoning Ordinance update Update Subdivision Ordinance require new construction to maintain a clear I separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic... develop landscaping requirements, including I recommended species for various purposes.. . I XVI-3 I Development of recreational facilities, specifically I including Laureldale Community Park (ongoing) optimize use of recreational facilities in accordance with Chapter Thirteen of this document... develop and implement a Master Plan for the Community Park, identifying areas most appropriate for new active recreation facilities along with areas best left in a natural condition... I incorporate removal of pond in development plan for Community Park.. . Contact PennDOT in regard to levelling Elizabeth I Avenue. This should be pursued afferthe status of the proposed hikinghiking trail along the former I railroad right-of-way has been determined. Long-Range Activities: Evaluate Comprehensive Pian I Continue park development

Funding Sources I The issues of finances and funding were recurring themes of the work sessions which were held in developing this Comprehensive Plan. As shown by the preceding text, the Borough is I sincerely committed to improving the lifestyle of its residents, but the question of how to pay for improvements in the face of a declining population is an unavoidable problem. This does not I mean that all of this planning is just dreaming, however, for there are a number of funding I sources available to the Borough. Those most applicable to the Borough are described below. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG's) are federal funds administered at the County level. Some of these funds may be used for planning: a CDBG partially paid for this Coniprehensive Plan. Where grants are used for physical improvements (utility installations, streets and sidewalks, stormwater management infrastructure, housing rehabilitation, building faqade rehabilitation, etc.) it must be demonstrated that the improvement will benefit low/moderate income persons or the handicapped.

Community Facility Loans are low-interest loans made by the Farmers' Home Administration (FmHA) to finance the construction, improvement, and/or enlargement of community and public facilities in rural areas and towns of less than 20,000. Although Laureldale is hardly a rural area, it is within the population limit and is therefore eligible. Facility types which are eligible are limited to health care, public safety, and general public services. I

1 Local Government Capital Projects Loans are administered by the state Department of Community Affairs. These are low-interest loans to communitieswith a population of I less than 12,000 for the purchase of equipment and the purchase, construction, or I renova tinn of municipal facilities. The State Planning Assistance Grant (SPAG) program, also administered by DCA, I provides assistance to local governments for the development of planning documents, including Comprehensive Plans, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and special I studies. .The grant amount is limited to 50% of the total project cost.

The Keystone Recreation, Park, and Conservation Fund (Key '93) is the present I incama tion of the now-defunct Recreational Improvements and Rehabilitation Act (RTRA). Under this program, a municipality may apply for grant assistance for any of the I following types of projects:

Pork relinbilifnfionnnd deuelopmenf projects, including rehabilitation of existing parks I and outdoor and indoor recreation facilities, and development of new public park and recreation lands and facilities. Acqrrisition projects, including purchase of land for public parks, recreation, or I conservation purposes. Projects may include acquiring land for new areas; in- holdings or buffer areas at existing park and recreation sites; preserving open space I and natural areas; and creating trails and other greenway areas. 0 Siirnll Communities / Smnll Projects is a component available to municipalities with a mavimum population of 5,000. These grants are limited to a maximum of $20,000 and will provide up to 100% funding of materials costs and professional fees. Labor 1 and construction equipment must be provided by the municipality and/or donated by volunteers. The money is used for projects such as picnic areas, playgrounds, ballfields, and general park improvementsand equipment. It is not intended for I major projects, such as the construction of tennis courts or swimming pools. I Other Key '93 elements provide funding for zoos, museums and historic sites, libraries, and private conservation organizations.

II Capital Program Budgeting For a small comniunity such as Laureldale, capital items include property, buildings, storm and I sanitary sewers, water mains, and major equipment, such as street maintenance vehicles and police cars. Expenditures for these items are beyond the normal operating budget and can I usually be planned, or at least anticipated. The various Borough departments should be asked to I list their anticipated capital needs for the next five years. This would prevent Council from being XVI-5 I I

"surprised by r7 sudden, critical need of which they could have been made aware. This will also I allow Council tn prioritize these needs, enabling them to set aside funds annually for major needs as they are anticipated. This degree of planning would enable the Borough to search thoroughly I for funding SOLIrces to assist in the areas where it may not be possible to save adequately. This plan should be reviewed and revised annually as projects are completed, as new needs become I evident, and as priorities change. I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I m XVI-6 I APPENDIX

Local Businesses: General Information

Key to S.I.C.Numbers

I I I I

I The following employers were defined as comprising the local employment pool for the Borough of Laureldale. Businesses within or immediately adjacent to the Borough are shown in bold face. Sources are identified as "Dalton" (Dalton's Business/Industry, 1993/94), "Dun" (Dun's Regional Business I Directorv / 1994), and "Harris" (1994 Pennsvlvania Industrial Directorv: Harris Publishing). Note that figures on number of employees may vary by source. I I NAME AND ADDRESS # EMPLOYEES SOURCE SIC# 1. A.T.T. MICROELECTRONICS 3,500 Harris 3674 I 2525 N. 12th St. 3,300 Dun 3679 2. ACME MARKETS, INC. 100 Dalton 5411 I 3215 5th St., Madiera Plaza 3. ALUMINUM ASSOCIATESISLOAN CORP 11 Dalton 1521 2811 Montrose Ave.

I 4. ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC. 700 Harris 3841 3000 Bemville Rd.

I 5. BACHMAN CO., INC. 570 Hams 2099,2096 50 N. 4th St.

I 6. BELMONT PROCESSING 45 Harris 2261 Belmont Ave. & Heisters La. 110 Dalton I 7. BERKS PRODUCTS 193 Harris 2439,3281, 726 Spring St. 3273

8. BOSCOVS 350 Dun 5311.8741 I 3135 Marion St. 400 Dm 1611 Vine St.

I 9. C.H. BRIGGS HARDWARE CO., INC. 105 Dun 5072 2047 Kutztown Rd.

I 10. C.N.A. INSURANCE 1,500 Dalton 6411 401 Penn St.

11. CAMP HOSIERY, INC. 300 Dalton 2252 I 1801 N. 12th St.

12. CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY, INC. 2,791 Harris 3312, -16,-15, I 101 W. Bern St. 3,500 Dalton -41,5051 I Appendix - 1 I I NAME AND ADDRESS # EMPLOYEES SOURCE SIC# I 13. CHRIST FUNERAL HOME 5 Dalton 7261 3300 Kutztown Rd.

I 14. CLAUSER OFFICE EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY 25 Dalton 5943 3602 Kutztown Rd. 30 Dun

I 15. CLOVER FARMS DAIRY CO. 140 Harris 2026,2086, 131 Grant Ave. 150 Dun 2033 I 16. COUNTY OF BERKS 1,700 Dalton 9121 633 Court St.

17. CRYSTAL BRANDS INC. 400 Dun 4225 I Airport Industrial Pk.

18. CRYSTAL BRANDS RETAIL 100 Dalton 5999 I 2101 N. 13th St.

19. DANA CORPORATION 2,100 Harris 3714.3713 I Robeson & Weiser Sts. I DANIELS, OSCAR, CO. (see READING SANITARY WIPER) 20. DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK & TRUST CO. 100 Dun 6022 Fifth Street Hwy. & George St.

21. DECORATIVE SPECIALTIES / JAMES IUVER 192 Harris 3479 220 Corporate Dr. 200 Dun 2672

22. DECORATIVE SPECIALTIES / WYOMISSING 230 Dun 2679 CONVERTING, Rt.183 & MacArthur Rd.

23. DIETRICH'S MILK PRODUCTS, INC. 140 Harris 2023, -21,-35, 100 McKinley St. 114 Dun's -26,-22

24. EMPIRE STEEL CASTINGS, INC. 150 Dalton, Dun 3325 1501 Frush Valley Rd. 215 Hams

25. ERICH'S SHARPENING SERVICE 3 Dalton 7699 1301 Frush Valley Rd.

26. EXIDE CORPORATION 200 Hams 3692 Montrose Ave. & Angeline St. 180 Dun

27. G.P.U. NUCLEAR / G.P.U. SERVICE 500 Dalton 4911 Route 183 & Van Reed Rd.

28. GIORGIO FOODS, INC. 382 Dalton 2033,2037 Blandon Rd. 286 Harris

Appendix - 2 1 NAME AND ADDRESS # EMPLOYEES SOURCE SIC#

I 29. GLIDDEN CO. 469 Dalton 2851,2821 301 Bern St. 360 Hams

I 30. W.R. GRACE & CO. / FORMPAC DMSION 275 Harris 3086 Tuckerton Rd. 252 Dun 3089 I 31. INDUSTRIAL METAL PLATING, INC. 100 Dun 3471 Mitchell Ave.

32. JETSON DIRECT MAIL SERVICE, INC. 200 Dun 7331 I 310 Corporate Dr.

33. KENNETH KLEIN WINDOW & DOORS 5 Dalton 5051 I 816 Elizabeth Ave.

34. KLEIN ROEBUCK ENTERPRISES 2 Dalton 5947 I 3530 Earl St.

35. K-MART 150 Dalton 5311 I 3045 Fifth Street Hwy. 175 DUI 36. J.C.PENNEY 100 Dalton 5311 I Fairgrounds Square Mall 143 DUII 37. L.M.T., INC. 6 Harris 2259,2257 I 205 Bellevue Ave. 8 Dalton 38. LANCO EQUIPMENT CO., INC. 4 Dalton 1711 I 2001 County St. 39. LAURELDALE TOOL CO. 4 Dalton 3544,3599 3215 Holtry St. Hams

I 40. LEADER NURSING & REHABILITATION 30 Dalton 8051 CENTER, 2125 Elizabeth Ave. 175 DUII

I 41. LUDEN'S 900 Dalton 2834,2064 200 N. 8th St. 600 Hams

I 42. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., INC. 800 DUII 4911 2800 Pottsville Pike

43. MUHLENBERG SCHOOL DISTRICT 200 Dalton 8211 I 801 Bellevue Ave.

44. MYERSCANNINGCO. 80 Harris 2033,2099 I 372 Pottsville Pike

45. N.G.K. METALS COW. 500 Hams 3351, -31, -39, I Tuckerton Rd. -41,-12 I Appendix - 3 I I NAME AND ADDRESS # EMPLOYEES SOURCE SIC# I OFFICE WORKS (see CLAUSER OFFICE EQUIPMENT) I OSCAR DANIELS CO. (see READING SANITARY WIPER) 46. PHAR-MOR 100 Dm 5912 I 3050 Fifth Street Hwy. 47. POLYMER CORP. 500 Harris 3083, -89, I 2120 Fairmont St. 414 DUn 3429, -94 48. READING HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER 2,700 Dalton 8062 6th & Spruce

I 49. READING SANITARY WIPER CO. / OSCAR 21 Hams -2842, DANIELS CO., 1515 Bennett St. 22 Dm 2621,2399 -92

I 50. READING SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,400 Dalton 8211 800 Washington St. I 51. READING TUBE 400 Harris 3341,3351 Route 61

52. REITECH CORP 28 Dun 2893,8742 I 3146 Marion St. 25 Dalton, Harris

53. S.R.G. AUTO SUPPLY 2 Dalton 5531 I 1518 Elizabeth Ave.

54. ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL, INC. 1,182 Dun 8062 I 12th &Walnut St. 1,100 Dalton 55. SINGER EQUIPMENT CO.,INC. 20 Dalton 5046 I 3030 Kutztown Rd. 111 Dun 5087,1799 56. SPORTS EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY 2 Harris 3949,2262, I 3617 Kutztown Rd. 5 Dalton 3479,2579 57. SWEET STREET DESSERTS 400 Harris 2099 722 Heister La. 350 Dun 2053 I 250 Dalton

58. TEXTILE CHEMICAL CO., INC. / SOCO 120 DUn 5169 I Pottsville Pike & W.Huller La. 59. TRAY-PAK CORP. 99 Dun 3089 I Tuckerton Rd. & Reading Crest 125 Harris 3086 60. U.S. POST OFFICE 1,000 Dalton 4311 I 2100 N. 13th St. I Appendix - 4 I I NAME AND ADDRESS # EMPLOYEES SOURCE SIC# I 61. UNIQUE PRETZEL BAKERY, INC. 20 DW 2052,5145 215 Bellevue Ave. 5461

I 62. WINDSOR KNITTING MILLS 110 DUn 2253 4201 Pottsville Pike G

I 63. WINDSOR SERVICES 171 Harris 2951 2415 Kutztown Rd. 100 DW 1611 I 64. WASA-EXIDE INC. 315 Dun 3692 2901 Montrose St. 221 Dalton I 261 Hams I I I I

Appendix - 5 I I Only numbers which appear in the preceding list of industries have been supplied here. I 0000 AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING I 1000 MINING AND CONSTRUCT ION 1521 single-family housing construction 1611 highway and street construction 1 1711 plumbing, heating, air conditioning 1799 special trade contractors, n.e.c. I 2000 & 3000 MANUFACTURING 2021 creamery butter 2022 cheese, natural and processed I 2023 dry, condensed, evaporated products 2026 ice cream and frozen desserts 2033 canned fruits and vegetables I 2035 pickles, sauces, and salad dressings 2037 frozen fruits and vegetables 2052 cookies and crackers I 2053 frozen bakery products, except bread 2064 candy and other confectionary products 2086 bottled and canned soft drinks 2096 potato chips and similar snacks I 2099 food preparations, n.e.c. [here, gourmet desserts] 2252 hosiery, n.e.c. [here, men's hosiery] 2253 knit outerwear mills 1 2257 weft knit fabric mills 2259 knitting mills, n.e.c. 2261 finishing plants, cotton [here, textile and garment dyeing] I 2262 finishing plants, man-made 2299 textile goods, n.e.c. 2392 house furnishings, n.e.c. I 2399 fabricated textile products, n.e.c. 2439 structural wood members, n.e.c. 2621 paper mills 2672 coated & laminated paper I 2679 converted paper products 2759 commercial printing, n.e.c. 2821 plastics materials and resins I 2834 pharmaceutical preparations 2842 polishes and sanitation goods 2851 paints and allied products I 2893 printing inks 2951 asphalt paving mixtures and blocks I I Appendix - 6 I I

3083 laminated plastics, plate & sheet I 3086 plastics foam products 3089 plastics products, n.e.c. 3273 ready-mixed concrete 3281 cut stone and stone products I 3312 blast furnaces and steel mills 3315 steel wire and related products 3316 cold finishing of steel shapes I 3325 steel foundries, n.e.c. [here, steel casings] 3331 primary copper 3339 primary non-ferrous metals, n.e.c. I 3341 secondary non-ferrous metals [here, copper refining and tubing] 3351 copper rolling and drawing 3429 hardware, n.e.c. I 3471 plating & polishing 3479 metal coating and allied services 3494 valves and pipe fittings, n.e.c. 3544 special dies, tools, jigs, and fixtures I 3599 industrial machinery, n.e.c. 3674 semiconductors and related devices 3679 electronic components, n.e.c. I 3692 primary batteries, dry & wet [here, motorcycle batteries] 3713 truck and bus bodies 3714 motor vehicle parts and accessories I 3841 surgical and medical instruments [here, procedural catheter trays] 3949 sporting and athletic goods, n.e.c. I 4000 TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES 4225 general warehousing & storage 4311 U.S. Postal Service I 4911 electric company I 5000 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE WHOLESALE: 5046 commercial equipment, n.e.c. [here, restaurant equipment & supply] 1 5051 metals service centers and offices 5072 hardware 5087 service establishment equipment 5145 confectionary 1 5169 chemicals & allied products, n.e.c. I I I I Appendix - 7 1 I RETAIL: 5311 department store 1 5411 grocery store 5461 re tail bakery 5531 automobile / home supply store 5912 drug store / proprietary store I 5943 stationery [office equipment and supplies] 5947 gift, novelty, and souvenir store ~I5999 miscellaneous retail stores, n.e.c. [here, factory outlet] 6000 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE I 6022 state commercialbanks 6411 insurance agents and brokers 6531 real estate agents and managers

I 7000 & 8000 SERVICES

7261 funeral services and crematories I 7331 direct mail advertising services 7538 general automotive repair shops I 7699 repair services n.e.c. [here, sharpening service] 8051 skilled nursing care facility 8062 general medical & surgical hospitals 8211 elementary & secondary schools I 8741 management services 8742 management consulting services

I 9000 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION .. 1 9121 legislative bodies [here, County government] I I I I 1 I

Appendix - 8