Public hearing draws full crowd for proposed Sagle Panhandle Bike Ranch

By Ben Olson
Reader Staff

The developers of a mountain bike park slated to break ground in Sagle on May 1 were met with a capacity crowd April 17 when the Bonner County Hearing Examiner took testimony on a conditional use permit for the project sought by Scott and Jennifer Kalbach.

Members of the public, some carrying signs that read “Keep Sagle Rural” and “No to the Sagle Bike Park,” testified before Bonner County Examiner Jacqueline Rucker about the proposal.

The Panhandle Bike Ranch is envisioned on two contiguous 85.33-acre parcels owned by the Kalbachs off Jumpline Landing in Sagle, currently zoned Rural 10. Access to the proposed facility is from East Dufort Road to Five Lakes Road, through the Five Lakes residential development approximately 3.5 miles east of Highway 95.

Bonner County Planner Tyson Lewis shared the staff report about the project, noting that the proposed development, “will not change zoning or land use designation of the property or the properties adjacent,” after numerous emails from concerned neighbors touched on the topic. 

Members of the public line up to testify at the conditional use permit hearing for Panhandle Bike Ranch April 17. Photo by Ben Olson.

Lewis said Bonner County Planning staff determined the CUP proposal complies with the definition of what constitutes a recreational facility on Rural 10 zoning in the county’s revised comp plan.

More than 600 responses came through an online form from the public, according to Lewis, with approximately 60% of respondents in favor and 40% in opposition to the project.

Jeremy Grimm of Whiskey Rock Planning and Consulting spoke to represent the developers, touting research that showed homes located near trails had higher property values and quality of life. Grimm, who also serves as Sandpoint mayor, declared that the city was not involved in the project in any way. 

Grimm reiterated that recreational services are not prohibited within areas zoned Rural 10, and the CUP should be approved as such. Grimm also pointed out that, compared to other developments that could go into that particular area, a mountain bike park is a much lower impact option than alternatives.

“You could have the property owner dividing their property into 10-acre parcels, which could add roughly 51 dwelling units onto the property,” Grimm said. “This could generate up to 100,000 trips per year in the adjacent neighborhood.”

Grimm also said that density bonuses given to landowners who set aside portions of their acreage for open space and trails connecting to public lands could increase density 65% or more.

“There’s a heck of a lot of value if the property owners were interested in a return on their investment, which they’re clearly not in this case,” Grimm said. 

Developer Scott Kalbach said he always intended the bike ranch to be a family-run business.

“This isn’t some corporate-owned business with big investors,” Kalbach said. “We don’t have investors who want aggressive growth. We want to run this as a small-scale operation, and I do believe it fits in with the rural character of the community.”

Among those who testified, Sagle resident Natalie Larson said she supported the bike ranch, was born and raised in Sandpoint and believes mountain biking is a quiet, low-impact sport that wouldn’t create any more noise than passing trains or existing traffic.

“I think this would be an asset to Bonner County,” Larson said.

Taylor Bradish said he appreciates that the landowners aren’t subdividing the property.

“He could be like all the other developers splitting their property into 10- and five-acre parcels,” Bradish said. “This particular use will be much less impactful to the valley there.”

Nick Badoux said he lives within a mile of the proposed location and was also in favor of the project because of how much potential mountain biking has as a healthy alternative for young people.

“Mountain biking has become my son’s passion in life,” he said. “It keeps him out of trouble, teaches him responsibility. … [L]et’s face it, you could have one horrible neighbor that could create more issues than this bike park will.”

Ariel Olson is a local business owner and self-proclaimed “bike fanatic.” She said she’s traveled all over the western half of the country for biking and has experienced many different bike parks.

“All along the way, I’ve spent money in all the towns and explored what they have to offer,” she said. “Mountain biking is awesome and it’s a neat way to use a big chunk of land.”

After supporters spoke, those in opposition lined up to give testimony.

Jeff Stevens said that while he can relate to the passion of mountain bikers, he believes the park is in the wrong place.

“I did research on the 85 mountain bike park ranches in the country, and zero of them have been built next to residential areas,” Stevens said. “Commercial businesses should not be involved in rural zones.”

Fifth-generation resident Twylla Miller said she believes the vision does not match the application submitted by developers.

“I’d also like to see a traffic plan for the intersection of Dufort and Highway 95,” Miller said. “That’s a dangerous intersection.”

Numerous commenters opposed the bike park, stating that they’d moved to North Idaho to retire, or for rural peace and quiet, and the development would disrupt their peaceful surroundings. 

Shawna Champlin said she moved to Sagle from Hawaii to seek a rural residential area, and that the bike park wouldn’t fit in with that rural character her neighbors moved here for as well.

“I am highly disappointed with the Bonner County staff report and Jeremy Grimm for not delving deeper to protect existing Bonner County residents,” Champlin said. “Do not tear up another mountain. Please deny this CUP.”

Mary Fraser pushed back on Grimm’s comment that the 170 acres could be several dozen homes instead of a bike recreational facility.

“This slope is 30 degrees and there’s 1,300 feet of elevation gain,” Fraser said. “There could be a handful of estate parcels, but the property does not lend itself to residential development.”

Examiner Jacqueline Rucker closed the meeting, stating she intended to take the five business days allotted for her to issue an approval or denial of the CUP.