Living In BC

Housing Element Presented to the BrownDraft County Planning Commission 05 on May 1st, 2019 Placed on file, pending revisions Living in BC - April 2019 5-1 I. Introduction

Housing is a basic need for communities that are constantly changing, as a dynamic population presents challenges and opportunities to Brown County and the local municipalities.

The Brown County housing market has recovered from the housing crisis, and the overall population has continued to grow and change as new families continue to move into Brown County, “baby-boomers” approach retirement age, and the population becomes more diverse. These findings indicate that prioritizing affordability and housing diversity choices for these and all population segments is important in order to keep Brown County growing and vibrant. Rehabilitating, updating, and maintaining the existing housing also helps meet the changing population needs.

This chapter recommends a number of options that the county and local communities may utilize to meet the changing population needs. The main recommendations are to revise zoning ordinances to allow for more affordable and diverse housing to help meet the changing housing market; continue to seek financial mechanisms that will make housing more affordable to low to moderate households, which includes new construction and rehabilitation; and consider pursuing housing market specific studies that enhance a community’s insight in meeting tomorrow’s housing needs.

The Issues and Opportunities Chapter of the plan contains the forecasts potential estimates for new housing units within Brown County over the next 20 years. The Housing Chapter will build on these forecasts by identifying existing trends and characteristics of the housing market, identifying general goals and objectives for housing development in Brown County, and providing recommendations on how to improve existingDraft and new housing. Relating these changes to anticipated future developments provides for the development and application of new and innovative housing practices.

Living in BC - April 2019 5-2 II. Goals and Objectives

Goal I. Continue to work with local communities to encourage development of neighborhoods that provide quality housing opportunities for all of Brown County’s population, and meets future population, and public health and safety needs.

Objective 1. Promote concepts and strategies to create more affordable housing opportunities through housing infill and different housing types.

Objective 2. Work with the Brown County Housing Authority to explore partnership possibilities for housing opportunities.

Objective 3. Promote and encourage the design and construction of a wider range of housing types that increase housing supply across all income levels and age ranges.

Objective 4. Continue toDraft manage the Northeastern WI Region CDBG- Housing Rehabilitation Program.

Living in BC - April 2019 5-3 III. Age Characteristics

Figure 5-1 shows that 34.6% of Urban Development. Funds the housing units in Brown from Brown County’s program As homes age, County are less than 30 years may be utilized to provide 0%, old, as compared to only 29% deferred payment loans to low- increased maintenance for the State of Wisconsin. This and moderate-income suggests that much of the homeowners for housing and upkeep become a housing stock within the county, repairs, including projects like when compared to housing replacing private onsite demanding task. The stock within the state, is wastewater treatment systems, City of Green Bay has relatively newer and therefore wells, roofs, siding, windows, generally in good condition. heating and ventilation, been proactive in However, there are a number electrical, plumbing, and lead of older homes located paint and asbestos abatement. addressing the primarily within the near- The loan payments are downtown areas of the City of deferred until such time as the maintenance and Green Bay, City of De Pere, the home is no longer the principal older suburban villages, and place of residence for the rehabilitation of its older within the Villages of Denmark, applicant, when the loan then Pulaski, and Wrightstown. There becomes payable in full. homes through the are also a number of older farm Repaid funds may then be re- homes in the more rural parts of loaned through a revolving utilization of Community the county. loan program. Additional Development Block programs allowable under the In 2013, the Brown County terms of the program include Grant entitlement funds, Planning and Land Services rental unit rehabilitation and Department began to home purchase down payment city staff, nonprofit administer a housing and closing cost assistance. Community Development Block organizations, Grant in a 10-county region of Northeastern Wisconsin, neighborhood including Brown County, but exclusive of any entitlement associations, and overall community, such as the City of Green Bay, that receives a Draftcitizen involvemen t. direct allocation from the U.S. Department of Housing and

Living in BC - April 2019 5-4 III. Age Characteristics

Figure 5-1: Age of Housing for Brown County and Wisconsin, in 2017.

Year Structure Was Built Brown County % Wisconsin %

2014 or later 887 0.8% 16,160 0.6%

2010-2013 2,838 2.6% 44,377 1.6%

2000-2009 16,365 15.1% 344,300 12.9%

1990-1999 17,348 16.0% 371,125 13.9%

1980-1989 13,582 12.6% 265,382 9.9%

1970-1979 17,830 16.5% 393,850 14.7%

1960-1969 11,717 10.8% 261,254 9.8%

1950-1959 10,609 9.8% 297,380 11.1%

1940-1949 4,552 4.2% 151,579 5.7%

1939 or Earlier 12,472 11.5% 522,925 19.6%

TOTAL Draft108,200 100% 2,668,692 100%

Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Living in BC - April 2019 5-5 IV. Structural Characteristics

Brown County has a slightly lower Figure 5-2: Units in Structure for Brown County and the State of Wisconsin in 2017. percentage of one-unit detached Brown Units in Structure % Wisconsin % structures than the State of County Wisconsin, at 63.6% and 66.6% respectively. Brown County has a 1-unit, detached 68,612 63.4% 1,776,970 66.6% slightly larger percentage of one- unit attached structures (5.2%) compared to the state (4.3%), but 1-unit, attached 5,444 5.03% 114,444 4.30% a much larger percentage of 5- to 9-unit structures than the state (8.6% for Brown County versus 4.9% 2 units 7,155 6.60% 173,245 6.50% for the state). Although there is some variability in the categories, Brown County and the State of 3 or 4 units 3,536 3.26% 99,396 3.72% Wisconsin are generally comparable in terms of percentages of units in structure. 5 to 9 units 9,838 9.1% 130,296 4.90% Figure 5-2 details the units in structure for Brown County and 10 to 19 units 5,296 4.9% 91,393 3.40% the State of Wisconsin.

20 or more units 6,548 6.1% 188,319 7.0%

Mobile home 1,741 1.6% 94,013 3.5% DraftBoat, RV, van, etc. 30 0.00% 616 0.00% TOTAL HOUSING 108,200 100% 2,668,692 100% UNITS

Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Living in BC - April 2019 5-6 IV. Value Characteristics

According to the 2013-2017 Wisconsin’s largest percentage homes valued at less than American Community Survey, the segment of home values are $100,000 than the state as a largest percentage of homes in between $200,000 and $299,999 whole. Figure 5-3 displays the Brown County is valued between and has a median home value of range of home values in Brown $100,000 and $149,999, and $169,300. Although the state has County as compared to the State Brown County has a median a larger percentage of higher- of Wisconsin. home value of $163,200. For priced homes, Brown County has comparison, the State of a much smaller percentage of Figure 5-3: Range of Home Values, Brown County and State of Wisconsin in 2017.

Brown County Wisconsin 35.0%

30.0% 29.6% 25.5%

25.0% 24.2% 23.0% 21.1%

20.0% 16.0%

15.0% 14.0% 11.7% 9.5%

10.0% 8.5% 6.2% 3.9%

5.0% 3.4% 2.3% 0.8% Draft 0.4% 0.0% Less than $50,000 to $100,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 to $300,000 to $500,000 to $1,000,000 or $50,000 $99,999 $149,000 $199,999 $299,999 $499,999 $999,999 more

Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Living in BC - April 2019 5-7 V. Occupancy

Figure: 5-4: Change in Housing Occupancy Characteristics, Brown County, According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 2010-2017. there were a total of 104,371 2010 2017 % Change housing units within Brown County. % % Increase This compares with 107,224 units in Census ACS 2000-2016 2017, 2,853 units (2.7 %) over the 7- year period. Indicating a very slight Total Units 104,371 100.0% 107,224 100.0% 2,853 2.7% increase in the number of residents who rent as compared to those who own. Rental demand has remained Occupied Units 98,383 94.3% 103,267 95.0% 4,884 5.0% strong since 2008 and according to The State of the Nation’s Housing Ownership Supply 64,585 61.8% 67,264 61.9% 2,679 4.1% Report in 2018, rental demand is starting to cool down but still remains relatively strong. Brown Rental Supply 33,798 32.3% 36,003 33.1% 2,205 6.5% County should encourage a healthy mix of rental and ownership options. Figure 5-4 summarizes the changes Vacant Housing Units 5,988 5.7% 4,933 5.0% -1,055 -17.6% that occurred in Brown County Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2010 Census and 2013-2017 American between 2010 and 2017 and Figure Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census. 5-5 summarizes the changes for the whole state over the same time. Figure 5-5: Change in Housing Occupancy Characteristics, State of Wisconsin, 2010-2017. % 2010 % 2017 ACS % Increase Change Census 2000-2010 Total Units 2,624,358 100.0% 2,668,692 100.0% 44,604 1.7%

Occupied Units 2,279,768 86.7% 2,328,754 87.2% 48,986 2.1%

Ownership 1,551,558 61.8% 1,559,308 58.4% 7,750 0.5% Supply RentalDraft Supply 728,210 31.9% 769,446 28.8% 41,236 5.6% Vacant Housing 344,590 13.1% 339,938 12.8% -4,652 -1.4% Units

Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2010 Census and 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Living in BC - April 2019 5-8 VI. Housing Affordability

Why do we need affordable U.S. Department of Housing and in Brown County increase significantly housing? This is a question that many Urban Development (HUD), a family is from 2008 and has surpassing the communities ask as they develop considered “housing cost burdened” annual average of $153,200 in 2007. their comprehensive plans. if the total expenses for housing The housing market in Brown County Affordable housing is a necessary exceed 30% of their income. When has more than recovered as annual and integral part of any healthy such a large percent of income is sales prices have increased by 30% community. As people’s lives invested toward housing expenses, and median sale per square foot has change, so do their housing families will likely have trouble increased by 38% from 2011 to 2018. preferences and their ability to pay affording necessities such as Median sales will continue to increase more or less for housing. For instance, transportation, clothing, meals, and but not exponentially. The large many communities identify large medical care. As a frame of percentage indicates that it is vital for areas in their comprehensive plans reference, a family with one full-time Brown County and its communities to for commercial or industrial worker earning the minimum wage address affordability and housing businesses. It is important to cannot afford the local fair-market diversity. Figure 5-6 displays the understand that the people who rent for a 2-bedroom apartment average selling price for a single- would work in these businesses would anywhere in the United States1. family home in Brown County over also need a place to call home. the past ten years and a 2019 According to Zillow.com and as is projected price. The affordability of housing is tied depicted in Figure 5-6, the median directly to income. According to the selling price of a single-family home Figure 5-6: Average Selling Price for a Single-Family Home in Brown County, 2008-July 2018. $180,000 $181,000 $169,000 $170,000 $159,000 $160,000 $148,000 $150,000 $135,000 $129,000 $142,000 $138,000 $128,000 $138,000 $140,000 $130,000 $131,000 $130,000

$120,000

$110,000

$100,000 Draft 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019*

Source: Zillow.com, accessed 4/15/2019, https://www.zillow.com/brown-county-wi/home-values/. * indicates projected 2019 sales.

Living in BC - April 2019 5-9 VI. Housing Affordability

Housing Cost Burdened Figure 5-7 Housing Cost Burdened Renters and Homeowners for Brown County Households and Wisconsin in 2017. Housing cost burdened and Renters Homeowners extremely cost burdened is defined as a household spending more than 30% of their income before taxes on gross housing costs. 2017 Cost Burdened % Cost Burdened % Units Units Figure 5-7 contains an inventory of current cost burdened households in Brown County and Wisconsin from the most recent data in 2017. Brown County 16,249 45.1% 12,480 18.5% • Roughly 45% of the rental household population are cost burdened under the HUD definition. • Approximately, 18.5% of homeowners in Brown County Wisconsin 343,513 44.6% 343,793 22.04% are considered housing cost burdened.

Housing Affordability Trends Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Since, 1990 there has been in an increase in cost burdened households throughout the United Figure 5-8 Brown County 10 Year Trends - Housing Cost Burdened Rates by Household States, including Brown County. A quote from the 2018 State of the Type. Nation’s Housing Report, explains some reasons for the increase in Brown County Cost Burdened Renters housing cost burdened households. “While better housing quality Brown County Cost Burdened Homeowners accounts for some of the increased costs, higher costs for building materials and labor, limited 50 productivity gains, increased land costs, new regulatory barriers, and 40 growing income inequality all 30 played major roles as well.” 20 Brown County and its communities should plan to address housing 10 affordability in areas it can control DraftPERCENTAGE such as reducing lot requirements 0 and allow zoning that is flexible to encouraging smaller homes and 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 housing diversity. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Living in BC - April 2019 5-10 VI. Housing Affordability Rental Housing Affordability Figure 5-9: Sampling of Occupations Making Less Than $14.34 per Hour in 2018. To further define the issue, the National Low Income Occupation Title Median Housing Coalition maintains a “Housing Wage Hourly Wage Calculator” that calculates the hourly wage needed to afford monthly rent amounts. That Counter and Rental Clerks $14.34 estimates that the mean renter hourly wage in Brown County would need to be $13.70, and that Orderlies $14.29 affordable rent at the mean renter wage would be Cooks – Institution and Cafeteria $14.26 $7132. Based on the most recent median gross rent estimate in Brown County of $746 from the 2013- Tellers $14.26 2017 American Community Survey, a person would Nursing Assistants $14.23 need to earn at least $14.34 per hour, or $29,840 per Sales and Related Occupations $14.20 year to pay no more than 30 % of income on housing. That is a $0.64 hourly gap that’s higher Pharmacy Technicians $14.07 than the estimated affordable rent at the mean Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers $13.49 renter wage. Landscaping and Grounds keeping Workers $13.42 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Light Truck or Delivery Services Drivers $13.35 May 2018 Metropolitan Area Occupational Security Guards $13.03 Employment and Wage Estimates for the Green Bay Metropolitan Area, there are a total of 76 different Food Processing Workers, All Other $12.81 occupations employing approximately 88,614 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $12.60 people with a median hourly wage below $14.34 Occupations 3 per hour . Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursey, and Greenhouse $12.52 Home Health Aides $12.51 Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping The people who perform these jobs are important $12.33 to our children, senior citizens, economy, and Cleaners overall quality of life in Brown County. Critically, Veterinary Assistants and Laboratory Animal Caretakers $12.18 County and local communities planning for future Material Moving Workers, All Other $11.84 commercial and industrial growth need to consider that these employees also need a place to live. A Cooks, Restaurant $11.69 range of affordable housing options, including, but Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education $11.61 certainly not limited to apartments, townhouses, Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $11.30 duplexes, and single-family homes are all necessary to house the people who work in our communitiesDraft. Childcare Workers $10.30 Bartenders $9.68 Cashiers $9.63 Waiters and Waitresses $9.07 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2018 Metropolitan Area Occupational Living in BC - April 2019 Employment and Wage Estimates – Green Bay, WI. Web address at end of chapter. 5-11 VI. Housing Affordability

Rental Gap Analysis prefer higher price rental units. The encourage developers and analysis indicates two rental nonprofits to apply for Low Income A rental gap analysis measures the affordability pressures. The first is Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and supply of rentals by price and that supply is not meeting demand provide zoning flexibility that would compares it with the demand for for rental households in the 30% or reduce costs to develop low rentals at a price based on renters’ lower Area Median Income (AM) income rental units. The second, income. It follows the same HUD which in 2016, was less than $16,252 there are downward pressures from standard that no more than 30% of a year. higher-income renters on medium a household’s gross income should income renters indicating a strong go to gross housing costs. The New construction of rentals at demand for both medium to higher analysis assumes that no household prices $406 or below, is generally priced rents at $1,084-$1,625. chooses to spend more than 30% not profitable for developers. Brown and that higher income renters County and its communities should Figure 5-10 Rental Gap Analysis for Brown County in 2016. Area Median Income (AMI) <30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 80-120% AMI >120% (Less than ($16,253- ($27,087- ($43,339- AMI (more $16,252) 27,086) $43,338) $65,006) than $65,007)

Maximum Affordable Rent (Per Month) <$406 $406-677 $678-1,083 $1,084-1,625 >$1,625

Number of Rental Households 2,142 11,366 10,622 5,601 272 Number of Renters Draft7,694 7,680 7,955 6,056 6,078 Rental Gap -5,552 3,685 2,667 -456 -5,806

Source: 2011-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Living in BC - April 2019 5-12 VI. Housing Affordability

Homeownership Affordability Figure 5-11 Annual Percentage Changes in Median Home Sales Per Square Foot and Household Medial Income for Brown County from 2012-2016. Brown County and its communities should be aware of recent trends that housing sales Changes from 2010 per square foot have been exceeding increases in median $/sq ft. % change Median Income % Change household income for some time. A snap shot from 2010-2017 30% 27% shows that housing prices per square foot have greatly 25% increased ever year, median 21% incomes have relatively kept pace with inflation. If Brown 20% County and its communities do not address recommendations presented in this chapter, 15% housing affordability will become a major barrier to 10% 8% homeownership, resident recruitment, and the overall 5% 3% 3% community well-being. 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% “…housing sales per square 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 foot have been exceeding PERCENTAGE CHANGE -5% -7% increases in median -10% -11% -11% -11% household income for some -15% time.” Draft-15% -20%

Source: Zillow.com and 2010-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census. No median income data available yet for 2018. Living in BC - April 2019 5-13 VI. Housing Affordability

Inclusive Homeownership Figure 5-12 Expected Work Hours a Week for Household Wages Combined to Afford the 2019 Zillow Projected Median House Price by Race. The Country as whole is becoming a more racially diverse nation and it is expected that America will be a minority majority Expected hours a week to afford the Zillow Expected 2019 Median House Price country by 2045. From 2011 to 2016, Brown 80 County has seen small increases in the White Population of about .9%, while the 73 population as whole has increased by 4%. 70 The County should expect the population to become more diverse and should pay close attention to how that affects 60 barriers to homeownership. Of note, the median White household needs to only 50 49 work roughly 30 hours per week to afford 50 44 the expected 2019 Median Home Sale 42 Price of $176,000. For Black, American Indian, and Hispanic households, they 40 need to work much more (73, 50, and 42 32 hours a week) to spend less than 30% of 30 31 their income on the median sales price of 30 $176,000. Brown County and its communities should continue to seek 20 down payment assistance options as well as follow the recommendations listed in this chapter to make homeownership 10 more inclusive achievable for all households. Figure 5-12 assumes that each household will be purchasing a 0 house at $176,000 with a 30 year fixed Asian rate 4.7% Annual Percentage Rate and White has an escrow loan that includes property Hispanic taxes and home insurance. Some other race Two or more races

DraftBlack or African American Median Median Household County Brown American Indian and Alaska Native

Source: Zillow.com and 201-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Living in BC - April 2019 5-14 VII. Recommended Programs and Policies As discussed throughout the (commercial, institutional, • A continuing increase in non- chapter, the Brown County recreational, etc.) and housing family households from 34.1% housing market has recovered types, resulting in “pods” of in 2000 to 35.65% in 2010. since the 2008 recession, single-use developments and changes in demographics are creating an environment where • A continuing increase of also changing housing every trip out of the house to run households with individuals preferences, increases in housing errands must be by vehicle 65 and over from 18.8% in costs are exceeding increases in because the land uses are 2000 to 21.2% in 2016. household incomes, and there is separated and spread out. not an adequate supply of Creating an environment where Other more general trends rentals for very low income and walking and bicycling are viable include: high income rental households transportation options through which is causing financial the mixing of compatible land • An expected increase in the pressures on low and moderate uses, including a variety of number of elderly family income rental households. housing types, is to be members living with Brown County and its encouraged. extended family due to the communities need to plan for a increasing cost of assisted resilient housing stock that meets In order to maintain a healthy living, home health care, the future needs of Brown mix of housing options in Brown and/or long-term health care County for all incomes while County, it will become necessary facilities. reducing adverse effects on the for all Brown County environment. communities to recognize how a • A continuation of the “back few demographic changes may to the city” movement Brown County should encourage impact the demand for various among young adults and residential subdivisions that types of housing options. empty nest adults to take consist of multiple residential advantage of the cultural, types, smaller lots sizes, allows for A few of the current (2000-2016) culinary, recreational, and the possibility of mix uses, and demographic trends that may nightlife options in cities. encourages active directly impact the housing transportation such as biking or market in Brown County and are • Continued increase in the walking. expected to continue over the nonwhite population as a next 20 years include: proportion or percentage of Residential subdivisions that have the Brown County been developed since the 1950s • A continuing decrease in population. tend to be very uniform and family size from 3.08 persons consist almost exclusively of per family in 2000 to 3.02 single-family homes. These Draftpersons per family in 2010. subdivisions are primarily (Under 3 as of 2016) separated from other uses

Living in BC - April 2019 5-15 VII. Recommended Programs and Policies Smaller Residential Lot Sizes minimum residential lot takes land Downtown Residential out of agricultural production that is Development One of the first and easiest ways for not necessarily required for the a community to increase the home site. In communities where The key to any downtown residential amount of affordable housing is to this is an issue, the utilization of development when it comes to encourage the use of smaller lots. In smaller maximum lot size for new housing is density. Within a newer developments in Brown residential development would bring downtown, land values are typically County with public sewer and the cost of the home down, as well higher than on the fringe. To make water, the typical residential lot is as take less land out of agricultural residential development financially approximately 1/4- to 1/3-acre production. viable in a downtown district, it is (10,800 to 14,520 square feet). In generally necessary to encourage areas without public sewer or water, A second technique to protect higher densities through apartment most communities require a farmland or the rural character of buildings, multi-floor condominium minimum of at least 1.5 acres (65,340 the community is to utilize developments, upper floor square feet) to build a home even conservation designed subdivisions. residential units above first floor though the Brown County Land These types of developments also commercial, group homes, and Division and Subdivision Ordinance have smaller residential lots, which similar developments. An added requires a minimum of only 20,000 can keep housing costs down. benefit to additional density within a square feet for a lot served by an However, the housing costs are downtown is that it provides readily onsite system. typically more because of the available customers to the many greenspace requirements that are a local small businesses within easy In addition to helping to keep the required part of the development. walking distance or a short bus ride. housing costs down, smaller lots It is important that new residential provide for greater efficiencies in developments within a downtown the delivery of such services as contribute to the overall design and postal delivery and garbage and streetscape through architecture, school bus pickup. Also, in terms of landscaping, parking, and site cost savings, the more homes that planning that is sensitive to its front on a street, the less the impact downtown location and is not simply on the individual homeowner when a transplanted suburban design. paying assessments for sewer main, water main, sidewalk, or street repairs.

Within the rural parts of Brown County where public sewer service may not be available, it is common for very large lots to be required. However, many of these communities are also intent upon Draft protecting farmland and preserving rural character. Oftentimes the required acreage for a large Source: Smaller lots (middle of image) compared to larger lots (upper part). Source: City of Seattle Housing Affordability and Living in BC - April 2019 Conservation Design for Subdivisions, Livability MHA Zone Summaries. 5-16 Arendt. VII. Recommended Programs and Policies Accessory Dwelling Units on a public spaces, such as streets, parks and Residential Parcel outdoor spaces, schools, places of worship or other shared facilities. As residents age, there may be a time Automobiles do not take precedence when they may not be able to live over human or aesthetic needs. Instead, independently, but do not want to or a neighborhood provides many ways of cannot afford to live in a retirement or getting to, through, and between it and elderly care home. An alternative would other parts of the community by driving, be to allow small, attached or detached walking, and bicycling. accessory dwelling units on one residential parcel. These “granny flats,” Neighborhood housing forms within a or “backyard cottages” as they are traditional neighborhood are mixed to sometimes called, allow older residents to provide more opportunities for people of different ages and income levels to live in maintain their own independent living Example housing preferences for different life quarters while being able to easily stages. Source: Local Government Commission, various parts of the neighborhood. The interact with their family for meals and 2003. concept of mixed housing types is very socializing in the principal residence. (TNDs) emphasize the neighborhood as a important because many people prefer functional unit rather than the individual to remain in their neighborhoods as their parcel or home. The State of Wisconsin incomes and/or family size increase or formalized its support for this type of decrease. This housing mix allows a development when it required that all young family to rent, purchase a starter cities and villages with a population of home, move into a larger home as their over 12,500 residents develop an family grows, move to smaller home ordinance that permits these types of when they retire, and move to an developments. Communities within apartment or other housing type all Brown County have addressed this within the same neighborhood. Figure 5- requirement by either creating a stand- 13 provides a general representation of alone TND zoning district or utilizing their how a person’s housing preferences Planned Development District (PDD) might change over time. process, both of which are valid approaches. Typical TND neighborhoods are about 100 to 160 acres, which is large enough to support retail services and amenities that meet some of the needs of daily life, but small enough to be defined by pedestrian comfort and Source: City of Seattle Guide to Building a Backyard Cottage. interest. The size of the neighborhood is based on a 5-minute walking distance (about a quarter-mile) from the edge to Traditional Neighborhood theDraft center and a 10-minute walk (about Development one-half mile) from neighborhood edge to edge. Each neighborhood typically Traditional neighborhood developments has an identity that evolves from its TND development in Buena Vista, CO. Source: Public Square, a CNU Journal. Living in BC - April 2019 5-17 VII. Recommended Programs and Policies Traditional Neighborhoods, cont.

Traditional neighborhood developments There are currently a number of are particularly appropriate in areas of conservation by design subdivisions in higher-density infill development or in Brown County, primarily associated with areas directly adjacent to existing waterways, wetlands, and the Niagara development. It is important to note, escarpment. It is important for local however, that TND is more than just communities to clearly identify the increased residential density. Traditional ownership and maintenance neighborhood development is a responsibilities for the areas to be “package” of amenities, including public preserved. and institutional uses, integrated neighborhood commercial uses, a mix of residential types and styles, a connected street pattern, and an array of transportation options.

Conservation subdivision open space feature.

Conservation by Design Developments

In certain parts of the County there may be critical environmental, historical, or agricultural features that should be preserved, but the local property owner wishes to develop his or her property. In situations such as these, conservation by design subdivisions could accomplish Draft both goals. In terms of housing, the lots in conservation by design subdivisions are typically smaller and clustered together Source: Example of a conservation subdivision, with protected views, woodlands, agricultural land, to prevent damage to the feature(s) to open space, and houses. Conservation Design for Subdivisions, Arendt. be preserved. Living in BC - April 2019 5-18 VII. Recommended Programs and Policies Enhance Public Knowledge of aging housing stock within their “Visitability” Concepts and communities. Universal Design In addition to rehabilitating deteriorating housing, the local communities could As is evident from the Issues and adopt minimum housing maintenance Opportunities Chapter, the overall standards to ensure that the housing population of Brown County is continuing stock is properly maintained. The housing to age. As people age, their ability to maintenance standard is used most move around their own home can often when there are no structural or become increasingly difficult. For a safety issues that could be addressed number of elderly and mobility-impaired through Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) Brown County residents, the simple enforcement but when the appearance presence of a single stair to enter a of the property is having an adverse home can cause a great deal of effect on neighboring property values. difficulty. According to Green Bay- based Options for Independent Living, “visitability” applies to the construction of new single-family homes to make them Source: Residential Rehabilitation, Remodeling “visit-able” by people with any type of and Universal Design, The Center for Universal physical or mobility disability. Typically Design, NC State University. visitable homes have: Reinvestment in Existing Housing • One entrance with no steps. Stock

• A minimum 32-inch clear passage Although 30.9% of Brown County’s through all the main floor doors and housing stock was constructed since hallways. 1990, this means that 69.1% of the housing stock was built prior to 1990 and • A useable bathroom on the main is now at least 23 years old. Housing floor. rehabilitation and maintenance is often thought of as an urban community issue. Although these improvements do not However, there are a large number of allow full accessibility, such as is older farmhouses in the rural towns that promoted in universal design, they do were built prior to 1939. Maintaining and allow (at a minimum) elderly and people rehabilitating these older farmhouses also with a mobility limitation the ability to visit preserves a link to Brown County’s a home or remain living in their home for agricultural history and heritage. a longer period of time. As discussed earlier in the chapter, there Universal design is a concept that are now housing rehabilitation programs promotes designing spaces for use by for residents of Green Bay administered everyone from the start, not just creating by the City of Green Bay and a separate separate spaces, or only designing program for the 23 other local units of places that could be easily modified in governmentDraft administered by Brown the future. Communities may County. The programs are expected to Above images: Housing rehabilitation before incorporate universal design principals continue into the future and should be and after completed through the Community into housing through things such as encouraged by the local communities Development Block Grant program curbless showers and stepless entrances. for their critical role in helping to maintain administered by Brown County.

Living in BC - April 2019 5-19 VII. Recommended Programs and Policies Mixing of Residential Types Mixed Uses in Residential blends in with the residential character of Developments the neighborhood. In order to achieve One of the components of traditional the desired seamless integration of these neighborhoods that should be The majority of residential subdivisions uses into the neighborhoods, strict considered throughout new residential developed over the past 50 years consist commercial design standards should be developments in Brown County is the almost exclusively of single-family employed. The design standards would inclusion and mixing of different housing detached homes separated from any let the developer know ahead of time types. Historically, housing types were other commercial, institutional, or even what standards the neighbors expect for mixed, and this can be seen in the near recreational uses. the building, and the neighbors would downtown neighborhoods of Green Bay know that the development meets their and De Pere. More recently, housing Residents of these subdivisions having to expectations, as well. types other than single-family detached then drive a vehicle to go to a store, homes have been grouped together, school, or park instead of having the thereby concentrating these uses. opportunity to walk or bike a relatively Mixing housing types avoids the short distance to these destinations. The concentrations of large tracts of rental segregation of uses and reliance on a properties and their perceived negative vehicle is especially difficult for the impacts. Residents and landlords of elderly, mobility-impaired, children, and rental units are more apt to better others who may not want to or cannot maintain their properties if they are mixed drive. with owner-occupied housing. The intent of this recommendation is to develop neighborhoods rather than Mixed-use development on Vine Street in simply subdivisions. In order to Cincinnati, Ohio.. encourage people to walk or bike, uses Source: Kelly Wilson, American Planning other than only single-family residential Association. uses should be encouraged within these new neighborhoods. For example, corner lots are very good locations for small neighborhood commercial uses and higher density residential developments, while recreational and institutional uses should be located in places that provide a focus point, gathering place, and identity for the neighborhood and its residents.

Mix of housing types and sizes, Butte, Montana. In order for uses other than single-family Source: Carolyn Torma, American Planning Association. detached homes to be palatable to surroundingDraft property owners, the neighborhood commercial, higher Commercial infill in Chicago. Source: Sylvia Lewis, American Planning density residential, and institutional uses Association. all need to be of a scale and design that

Living in BC - April 2019 5-20 VIII. Summary of Recommendations

Brown County and its local communities 5) Provide zoning flexibility for vacant Range of Housing Recommendations must continue to monitor their progress in lots as single family housing in an meeting the housing goal and objectives older neighborhood will sell for less, 7) Encourage Brown County contained within this chapter. The but a duplex or fourplex could be communities to seek the possibility of housing programs and policies identified, more profitable for developers. completing a housing needs if followed, would lead the County assessment. toward the overall stated housing goal. 6) Encourage downtown residential developments as moving back into 8) Encourage affordable housing Land Use and Zoning the center is a more popular options within Brown County that Recommendations preference than in recent past. support local economic development efforts. 1) Reduce lot sizes, street widths, and 7) Reducing parking requirements to a encourage a reduction in home sizes range of 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit for 9) Utilize the governmental programs to encourage the construction larger rental properties to reduce and nonprofit agencies listed in the smaller residential lots that reduce construction costs and gross rent. Implementation Chapter to assist costs and barriers to homeownership. Brown County and its local units of 8) Consider encouraging “Inclusionary government in attaining the goal 2) Permit a small, secondary principal Zoning” for larger Brown County and objectives of this chapter. structure (“granny flat”) on residential communities which require 10% of parcels to allow the elderly a place new housing development to be low 10) Consider changing demographics to continue to live semi- income, or in lieu payment be made with new housing developments. independently. to support lower income housing. 11) Work in cooperation with Brown 3) Encourage the local communities 9) In areas of the county where there County’s local units of government that are able to support a traditional are unique resources, conservation and non-profit agencies to ensure neighborhood development (TND) to by design developments should be safe and sanitary shelter options for adopt a traditional neighborhood encouraged rather than larger lot the county’s homeless population. development district in their rural subdivisions. respective zoning ordinances. 12) Coordinate with local non-profit and governmental agencies to provide 4) Allow for adequate growth of the educational information on rental market and middle housing (2- purchasing a home to potential 8 units) in future land use maps. homebuyers. Special consideration should be given to transportation routes or near amenities frequently visited by families such as parks, trails, grocery stores, and medical facilities. Draft Open space incorporated into neighborhood. Shippy Park, Village of Pulaski. Source: Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, 2018.

Living in BC - April 2019 5-21 VIII. Summary of Recommendations

Financing and Housing Policy Individual Homeowner Aid Community Based Aid Recommendations 13) Encourage more homeowners to 17) Encourage and assist developers in Financing is an important component of inquire about the Northeast seeking Low Income Housing Tax implementing housing solutions. There are Wisconsin Rehabilitation Home Loan Credits (LIHTC), USDA Rural Loans, often three barriers to executing housing Program and continue to improve and Federal Home Loan Bank loans, policies financially. One is that the marketing for the loan program. and other grants to encourage the homeowner or landlord does not have construction of lower income the funds to implement or improve their 14) Encourage homeowners to seek affordable rentals. house. Secondly, there may not be a energy such as Newcap Inc and large enough incentive to improve a credit counseling services. 18) Establish a Neighborhood house because the homeowner will just Revitalization Commission or Task pay more in property taxes. Sometimes, 15) Assist in the promotion of residents Force to encourage revitalize of certain housing types or construction of seeking down payment assistance older housing. certain housing may not be profitable for help from organizations such as developers. The recommendations NeighborWorks. 19) Investigate the possibility of below are general financial establishing financial incentives to recommendation or strategies. 16) Coordinate with the Brown County improve the quality of homes such as Lead Coalition to improve neighborhood revitalization districts, Disclaimer: Brown County does not education, outreach, and potential housing authorities, and low interest support one nonprofit, grant program, or financing of lead home renovation. loan programs. municipality over any other. If a program is mentioned below it is to showcase an 20) Brown County communities should example or two. For communities or consider complete housing needs individuals seeking help please contact assessments to identify and improve the Planning and Land Services or the their housing supply for current and Brown County Health and Human future residents. Services Departments. Draft

Mixed-use development.

Living in BC - April 2019 5-22 References

1U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development website, accessed 4/18/2019. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/ 2National Low Income Housing Coalition Website, accessed 4/18/209. https://reports.nlihc.org/oor/Wisconsin.

3U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2018 Metropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates – Green Bay, WI. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_24580.htm#00-0000 Accessed on 4/15/19.

Draft

Living in BC - April 2019 5-23