Graduate Curriculum Committee Course Proposal Form for Courses Numbered 5000 and Higher
Note: Before completing this form, please carefully read the accompanying instructions.
Submission guidelines are posted to the GCC Web site: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/gcc/index.cfm
1.
Course prefix and number: 2. Date:
PLAN 6065 11/26/2012
3.
Requested action:
New Course
Revision of Active Course
Revision & Unbanking of a Banked Course
Renumbering of an Existing Course from
X
from # 5065 to # 6065
Required X Elective
4.
Method(s) of delivery (check all boxes that apply for both current/proposed and expected future delivery methods within the next three years):
Current or
Proposed Delivery
Method(s):
X On-campus (face to face)
Expected
Future Delivery
Method(s):
X
Distance Course (face to face off campus)
Online (delivery of 50% or more of the instruction is offered online)
5.
Justification. Identify the committee or group (e.g., Graduate faculty of the Department of
English) that conducted the assessment of curriculum and student learning. Explain why the unit wishes to offer or revise the course. Include specific results from the unit assessment that led to the development or modification of the course. If applicable, cite any accrediting agency/ies and reference the specific standard/s.
This course will take the place of the existing course PLAN 5065, Land Use Planning, in the graduate catalog. This course will become an elective in the Master of Community
Planning (MCP) degree upon its establishment; prior to that degree approval, this course may serve as an elective for non-planning graduate students in planning-related programs, including geography, sustainable tourism, and public administration, among others. The MCP degree is included in the university’s approved 2012-2017 academic program plan. We intend to seek approval by the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) of the MCP degree program upon establishment and eligibility. The Planning Accreditation
Board (PAB’s) revised standards and criteria effective April 14, 2012, provide that for
“electives” the planning curriculum “shall contain opportunities for students to explore other areas such as exposure to other professions, other specializations, and emerging
Approved by GCC April 2012; posted summer of 2012

trends and issues” (p. 10). Growth management is a specialization of planning and is encompassed within the roles assigned to planning professionals. This course request is consistent with that accreditation requirement.
We have consulted with our planning program alumni advisory board in preparing these course proposals; that board serves an important, ongoing assessment function for the BS in Urban and Regional Planning degree program, and it has provided important input in the preliminary design of the MCP degree proposal. The planning program committee
(planning faculty, all of whom are graduate faculty) approved this course proposal in a regular meeting on September 5, 2012. The graduate faculty of the Geography
Department approved this proposed curriculum package at its October 12, 2012, faculty meeting.
6.
Course description exactly as it should appear in the next catalog:
PLAN 6065. Growth Management (3) Formerly PLAN 5065 Land use planning and regulatory techniques for achieving efficient urban form.
7.
If this is a course revision, briefly describe the requested change:
Change course level from 5000 to 6000 and amend title of course from “land use planning” to “growth management.”
8.
Course credit:
Lecture Hours
Lab
3 Weekly OR Per Term Credit Hours
Weekly OR Per Term Credit Hours
3 s.h. s.h.
Studio
Practicum
Internship
Weekly OR Per Term Credit Hours
Weekly OR Per Term Credit Hours
Weekly OR Per Term Credit Hours s.h. s.h. s.h.
Other (e.g., independent study) Please explain. s.h.
3 s.h. Total Credit Hours
9.
Anticipated annual student enrollment:
(Note: anticipated enrollment as shown is upon establishment of the MCP degree program; prior to establishing the MCP degree, enrollment is anticipated to be much more limited)
10.
Changes in degree hours of your programs:
10
Degree(s)/Program(s) Changes in Degree Hours
Not applicable Not applicable
11.
Affected degrees or academic programs, other than your programs:
Degree(s)/Program(s)
Changes in
Degree Hours
MS in Technology Systems, p.306 None
12.
Overlapping or duplication with affected units or programs:
Not applicable
X Documentation of notification to the affected academic degree programs is
Approved by GCC April 2012; posted summer of 2012

attached.
13.
Council for Teacher Education (CTE) approval (for courses affecting teacher education):
X Not applicable
Applicable and CTE has given their approval.
14.
University Service-Learning Committee (USLC) approval:
X Not applicable
Applicable and USLC has given their approval.
15.
Statements of support: a. Staff
X Current staff is adequate
Additional staff is needed (describe needs in the box below): b. Facilities
X Current facilities are adequate
Additional facilities are needed (describe needs in the box below): c
.
Library
X Initial library resources are adequate
Initial resources are needed (in the box below, give a brief explanation and an estimate for the cost of acquisition of required initial resources): d. Unit computer resources
X Unit computer resources are adequate
Additional unit computer resources are needed (in the box below, give a brief explanation and an estimate for the cost of acquisition): e. ITCS resources
X ITCS resources are not needed
The following ITCS resources are needed (put a check beside each need):
Mainframe computer system
Statistical services
Network connections
Computer lab for students
Software
Approval from the Director of ITCS attached
16.
Course information (see: Graduate Curriculum and Program Development Manual for instructions):
Approved by GCC April 2012; posted summer of 2012

a. Textbook(s) and/or readings: author(s), name, publication date, publisher, and city/state/country. Include ISBN (when applicable).
TEXTBOOKS (REQUIRED):
Douglas R. Porter, Managing Growth in America's Communities , Second Edition.
Washington, DC: Island Press, 2008. ISBN -13: 978-1-59726-007-7 (pbk.).
Kelly, Eric Damian. Managing Community Growth: Policies, Techniques, and
Impacts , Second Edition. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. ISBN 0-275-97793-5 (pbk.).
ADDITIONAL READINGS
Audirac, Ivonne, Anne H. Shermyen, and Marc T. Smith. 1990. “Ideal Urban Form and Visions of the Good Life: Florida’s Growth Management Dilemma.” Journal of the American Planning Association 56, 4: 470-482.
Berke, Philip R. 2002. “Does Sustainable Development Offer a New Direction for
Planning?” Challenges for the twenty-first century.
Journal of Planning Literature 17,
1: 21-36.
Brueckner, Jan K. 2000. “Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies.”
International
Regional Science Review 23, 2:160-171.”
DeGrove, John. M. 2005. Planning Policy and Politics: Smart Growth and the States .
Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Downs, Anthony. 2005. “Smart Growth: Why We Discuss It More than We Do It.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 71, 4: 367-378.
Frank, Lawrence D., and Peter O. Engelke. 2001. “The Built Environment and Human
Activity Patterns: Exploring the Impacts of Urban Form on Public Health.” Journal of
Planning Literature 16, 2: 202-218.
Freilich, Robert H. 1999. “Ramapo”, pp. 39-105 (Chapter 3) in
From Sprawl to Smart
Growth: Successful Legal, Planning and Environmental Systems . Chicago: American
Bar Association.
Gale, Dennis E. 1992. “Eight State-sponsored Growth Management Programs: A
Comparative Analysis.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 4: 425-439.
Galster, George, Royce Hanson, Michael R. Ratcliffe, Harold Wolman, Stephen
Coleman, and Jason Freihage. 2001. “Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and
Measuring an Elusive Concept.” Housing Policy Debate, 12, 4: 681–717.
Godschalk, David R. 2004. “Land Use Planning Challenges: Coping with Conflicts in
Visions of Sustainable Development and Livable Communities.”
Journal of the
American Planning Association 70, 1: 5-13.
Knaap, Gerrit, and Lewis D. Hopkins. 2001. “The Inventory Approach to Urban
Growth Boundaries.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67, 3: 314-326.
Approved by GCC April 2012; posted summer of 2012

Landis, John. 2006. “Growth Management Revisited: Efficacy, Price Effects and
Displacement.” Journal of the American Planning Association 72, 4: 411-430.
Lee, Sugie, and Nancey Green Leigh. 2005. “The Role of Inner Ring Suburbs In
Metropolitan Smart Growth Strategies.” Journal of Planning Literature 19, 3: 330-346.
Mohamed, Rayman. 2006. “The Economics of Conservation Subdivisions: Price
Premiums, Improvement Costs, and Absorption Rates.”
Urban Affairs Review 41, 3:
376-399.
Nelson, Arthur C. 2000. “Growth Management.” Chapter 15 (pp. 375-400) in Charles
J. Hoch, Linda C. Dalton, and Frank S. So, eds. The Practice of Local Government
Planning , 3 rd
Ed. Washington, DC: International City/County Management
Association.
Nelson, Arthur C. 1993. “Oregon's Urban Growth Boundary Policy as a Landmark
Planning Tool.” In Abbott, C., Howe, D., Adler, S., eds.
Planning the Oregon Way: A
Twenty-Year Evaluation , Chapter 2, pp. 25-47. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University
Press.
Neuman, Michael. 2005. “The Compact City Fallacy.”
Journal of Planning Education and Research 25, 1: 11-26.
Norton, Richard K. 2005. “Local Commitment to State-Mandated Planning in Coastal
North Carolina.”
Journal of Planning Education and Research 25, 2: 149-171.
Pruetz, Rick, and Noah Standridge. 2009. “What Makes Transfer of Development
Rights Work? Success Factors from Research and Practice.”
Journal of the American
Planning Association 75, 1: 78-87.
Stone Jr., Brian, Adam C. Mednick, Tracey Holloway, and Scott N. Spak. 2007. “Is
Compact Growth Good for Air Quality?” Journal of the American Planning
Association 73, 4: 404-418.
Wheeler, Stephen M. 2008. “The Evolution of Built Landscapes in Metropolitan
Regions.”
Journal of Planning Education and Research 27, 4: 400-416.
Yaro, Robert D., Randall G. Arendt, Harry L. Dodson, and Elizabeth A Brabec. 1993.
Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for
Conservation and Development . Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. b. Course objectives for the course (student – centered, behavioral focus)
If this is a 5000-level course that is populated by undergraduate and graduate students, there must be differentiation in the learning objectives expected.
Upon completion of this course, students will be able to:
1.
Describe and interpret the causes and consequences of “sprawl,” and the major tenants of land use planning and the “smart growth” movement.
2.
R elate their thoughts broadly about the future of suburban areas in America.
3.
Identify the theoretical underpinnings of land use planning, including the need for public intervention into the land market, the economic purposes of growth management, and issues of efficient urban form.
Approved by GCC April 2012; posted summer of 2012

4.
Recognize how problems of growth management span beyond local jurisdictions to regions and states, and assess the effectiveness of programs at the regional and state levels to manage growth.
5.
Examine the four basic tools of land use: comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and capital improvement programs.
6.
Select and evaluate one or more case studies of growth management
7.
Assess the viability of different development and settlement patterns.
8.
Identify legal issues associated with various growth management techniques. c. Course topic outline
The list of topics should reflect the stated objectives.
A.
Overview; State and Regional Growth Management
1.
Urban form: urban sprawl, smart growth, and sustainability
2.
Growth controls; phased growth programs; early growth management history
3.
State growth management programs
4.
Regional growth management programs
B.
Where to Grow; Facility Planning and Financing
1.
Urban growth boundaries
2.
Priority funding areas
3.
New urbanism
4.
Transit-oriented development
5.
Jobs-housing balance
6.
Adequate public facilities requirements/concurrency
7.
Impact fees
C.
Where Not to Grow
1.
Impervious surface coverage
2.
Mitigation of natural hazards
3.
Viewshed protection
4.
Habitat conservation plans
5.
Landscape ecology
6.
Transfer of development rights
D.
Land Use and Transportation Connections
1.
Land use-transportation interactions
2.
Traffic sheds as a growth management tool
E.
Design Review and Aesthetics
F.
Exclusionary Zoning; Critiques of Growth Management d. List of course assignments, weighting of each assignment, and grading/evaluation system for determining a grade
Approved by GCC April 2012; posted summer of 2012

ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING
Students will be graded on a 100 point scale (1 point = 1% of final grade)
Letter grade Points
A
B
90-100
80-89
C 70-79
F Below 70
Assignments and Weighting
Assignment #1: Summary of case study including presentation
Assignment #2 critical review of a journal article, including presentation
Assignment #3: short paper on approved topic, including presentation
Cumulative Final exam
Points Possible
20 points
20 points
20 points
40 points
% of Grade
20%
20%
20%
40%
Approved by GCC April 2012; posted summer of 2012