Comprehensive Master Plan - City of Alvin

facts & figuresLand UsePreservation of existing stands of mature vegetation 90.91%Volumes of traffic on area roadways 84.62%Density standards for high‐density residential 84.62%Uses that pose significant compatibility issues 84.62%Differences in residential density 84.62%Development requiring extension of services/infrastructure 84.62%Design standards for all non‐residential buildings 83.33%‐ Design standards for large buildings only 50.00%‐ Design standards only along major roadways 46.15%Compatibility issues between residential/non‐residential 76.92%Differences in the scale or size of buildings 76.92%Differences in the height of adjacent buildings 76.92%Differences in residential intensity and character 76.92%Future Land Use Planning ExerciseIn January 2004 a future land use planningexercise was conducted to evaluate variousgrowth and development alternatives. Twowidely divergent conceptual alternatives werepresented to the committee, including onerepresenting a continuation of currentdevelopment patterns and a second scenariofocusing on a managed approach. The firstalternative expressed a rapidly expandingoutward growth pattern with no real limitationon the pattern of development and nodefinition between urban and ruraldevelopment. Each of the corridors would beconsumed with non‐residential development,A future land use planning exercise was conducted to expresswith no differentiation between commercialthe intentions as to the type, pattern and character of future and industrial uses or their scale and intensity.development in Alvin and its planning area.Other industrial development would largelylocate along the railroad and in the area alongS.H. 6 at the southern City limits, but without limitation for encroachmentinto other areas. The remaining areas would be developed with widelyranging residential uses, including a mixture of small and large lots, varyinghome sizes and prices, and conventional site‐built and manufactured homes,There is no consideration relating to infrastructure capacities, traffic volumes,or community character.April 1, 2005Page 3-38