Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 <br />Small Group Charrettes. Input from residents, land and business <br />Youth Engagement <br />owners, and City officials occurred through small group charrett <br />that were held over the course of two days. These hour-long <br /> <br />One of the small group charrettes <br />charrettes pushed attendees to think about the issues and future <br />that was held was focused on <br />envisioned, and the information obtained was used throughout the <br />receiving input directly from La <br />planning process. <br /> its youth. Their <br /> <br />understanding of the community <br />City Council Involvement. City Council briefings were held in October <br />was tremendous and their <br />2011 and February 2012 to update them on the activities to date. <br />feedback was pertinent to both <br />not only the approval body, but also the chief implementing agen <br />understanding and solving the <br />the City Council was involved throughout the process. <br />eatest issues. In general, <br /> <br />A priority-setting workshop with members of the Planning and Zon <br />quality of life improvements, their <br />Commission and City Council was held in February 2012 to engage <br />schools, and their community. <br />discussion about the on-going process and to gather feedback. <br /> <br />Analysis of the draft document allowed for establishing near- an <br />Conversely, there was concern <br />long-term priorities for plan implementation. The results of thi <br />workshop are incorporated into Chapter 6, Implementation. <br />buildings, the increased truck <br /> <br />traffic, and the prevalence of <br />Over a period of 10 months, a variety of public outreach and <br />litter. In addition, many of them <br />involvement activities were completed, and individual elements o <br />expressed that there was a lack of <br />master plan were drafted, reviewed, and refined to produce a <br />summer jobs and places for <br />document for public and official consideration. Throughout the <br />teenagers to socialize together <br />process, citizens were able to review th <br />within City limits. There was also <br />website and provide feedback to City staff. Residents were also <br />concern about the separation <br />to voice support or opposition at the public hearing. <br />between East and West La Porte, <br />but offered solutions on how to <br />achieve better unification. <br />1.” 0« ­ 0±¨®±¨³¨¤² <br /> <br />They felt that despite the recent <br />One of the most important tasks in developing a plan is to deter <br />improvements, there was still a <br />the key issues that the community needs to address. The <br />lot of work to do. Yet, the <br />reconnaissance efforts early in the process, combined with staff <br />community was headed in the <br />citizen input resulted in a formulation of a list of priorities <br />right direction. <br />the remaining chapters of this plan address. These include: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Development of a Consensus Vision and Direction. As <br />Source: Youth Engagement Small Group <br />Charrette. <br />mentioned in the Vision section of this chapter, the citizens an <br />officials once again needed to determine their preferred future. <br />his update which <br />resulted in a new consensus vision. <br />Determining Strategies to Achieve the Vision. Once the consensus vision <br />was determined, the focus of the planning efforts turned toward <br />1.16 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />