Fort Atkinson council reviews six options for troubled Kashkanaan Estates; residents favor serving existing homes or relocating houses

FORT ATKINSON, Wis. — At a Dec. 3 workshop the Fort Atkinson City Council and consultants presented six engineering scenarios to address long‑standing drainage, floodplain and soil problems in the Kashkanaan Estates subdivision, ranging from limited road repairs to purchasing and relocating existing homes.

Andy Burke, the consultant presenting the study for Grama engineers, told the council the team used desktop data and about 40 soil borings, plus wetland delineations, to map constraints and identify which lots could realistically be developed. “When you overlay the floodplain, wetlands and the soils, some lots are not developable,” Burke said, and he reported construction‑only cost estimates ranging from a little over $1 million for a minimal reconstruction option to roughly $1.62 million for a larger reconfiguration. He said one scenario allowing the most additional single‑family homes would cost about $1.5 million.

The study described six alternatives: (1) keep current lot lines and add about 13 homes; (2) an alternate roadway configuration allowing roughly 36 homes; (3) lot changes with a cul‑de‑sac adding ~32 homes; (4) moving a roadway to better soils and reconfiguring the south for a few more lots; (5) a low‑impact option that abandons many road segments, provides cul‑de‑sacs and long shared driveways to serve existing homes (estimated just under $1 million in construction costs); and (6) the most costly option in which the city would buy and relocate existing houses north in the subdivision and abandon much of the southern infrastructure.

Council members pressed staff on practical questions. One council member asked whether emergency vehicles and garbage trucks could access homes served by long shared driveways in Scenario 5; Burke said public roadway portions would be built to fire‑access standards but that the city would need fire department input and to resolve ownership, plowing and maintenance through easements or replatting. On whether basements could be built in relocated lots, Burke said new houses would likely be slab‑on‑grade because of high groundwater.

Residents who spoke said they have experienced repeated basement flooding and continuous sump pump use. John House recounted a 2008 flood that reached back doorsteps. Chris Vegaski, who identified himself as a meteorologist and a Kashkanaan Estates property owner, described two and a half years of on‑site precipitation records, said his sump pump runs “every minute to 2 minutes” year‑round and warned the 100‑year floodplain mapping is uncertain with limited streamflow data. “I suspect that my lot would be considered not suitable for development,” Vegaski said, adding that pumping has already created new wetlands in some cases.

Several residents and a council member argued Scenario 5 (serve existing homes with durable minimal infrastructure) or Scenario 6 (relocate homes out of the worst areas and convert remaining land back toward natural wetland) are the most responsible choices. Proponents of Scenario 6 said it best protects existing homeowners and would allow the city to return marginal lots to a natural state; opponents noted the high cost and homeowner reluctance to move.

Staff noted the study’s cost estimates reflect construction only and did not include potential offsets from lot sales; they also warned there is a major sanitary sewer interceptor running south through the area that the city must retain access to, even if surface roads are abandoned. That constraint means the city would still need to maintain some form of access to manholes and the interceptor infrastructure.

Council members asked staff to gather additional information before making policy choices: test whether local builders would construct homes without basements, clarify easement and maintenance options for long shared driveways under Scenario 5, evaluate whether particular southern road elements are nonstarters, and convene a smaller meeting with property owners and consultants for detailed follow‑up. The council did not vote on any option. A council member moved to adjourn and the workshop was closed.

The council directed staff to return with more detailed answers — including builder feedback, groundwater and drought context, and potential easement models — and to meet with property owners informally before scheduling another workshop to narrow options.