Austin City Council approved rezoning the former Rosedale Elementary School property on Sept. 24, clearing a zoning hurdle for a proposed six-story, 435-unit apartment complex near 49th Street and Burnet Road. The vote came three days after negotiations between Austin Independent School District and Rosedale residents collapsed. The plan, developed by OHT Partners in collaboration with the district, is intended to bring dense housing near future Project Connect light rail stations, parks and local businesses. OHT representative David Hartman told council members the project would also improve storm-sewer infrastructure. He said the developer could have sought approval for a 120-foot building but is proposing a maximum height of 75 feet. Residents who addressed the council said they were not opposed to development, but wanted a smaller project with more affordable homes and housing types such as duplexes, townhomes and small apartment buildings. They also raised concerns about traffic and the effect of a large building on nearby homes. The dispute is tied to deed restrictions dating to the school’s opening in the 1930s. Residents say the restrictions require the property to revert to single-family zoning if the school closes. AISD sued more than 100 neighbors last fall in an effort to nullify the restrictions, according to remarks by Rosedale Neighborhood Association representative Carl Reynolds. Reynolds told the council he believes residents have a better-than-even chance of prevailing in court and expects the litigation could take at least three years. He argued that rezoning before the case is resolved is premature. Carol Wagner, who has lived across the street from the school for 46 years, said residents want “thoughtful change,” not an unchanged neighborhood. She said AISD’s decision to sue neighbors, including her, left her feeling betrayed after raising two daughters in district schools. Rosedale resident Adam Hootnick presented an alternative plan for about 200 homes, including duplexes, townhomes and smaller apartment buildings. He said the council’s vote risked extending the legal fight rather than producing housing or revenue for the district. “The saddest part of this zoning vote is that it won’t do anything to get homes built or get AISD paid,” Hootnick said. District 7 Council Member Mike Siegel said the negotiations had come close to a compromise before they fell apart. He expressed sympathy for residents who have had to hire lawyers and respond to document requests, and said a settlement would be preferable to years of litigation. Depending on the outcome, he said, AISD could win the right to build 435 units, or residents could limit construction to 50 or 60 units. Siegel secured an amendment directing the city manager to consider traffic-safety improvements on nearby streets. He then voted for the rezoning, saying it would be appropriate even if the neighborhood’s alternate plan were eventually adopted. District 10 Council Member Marc Duchen opposed the measure, arguing that future decisions about repurposing closed schools need more thorough consideration. The council approved the rezoning 10-1. The vote allows the development to move forward under the new zoning, but the deed-restriction lawsuit and the disagreement over the project’s scale remain unresolved.