Residents of the Rosedale neighborhood met with representatives of the Austin Independent School District through the summer to discuss the district’s plan to put a six-story, 435-unit apartment complex on the site of the closed Rosedale Elementary School near 49th and Burnet. The residents hoped the district would agree to downsize the project, which they argue would block the sun from nearby single-family homes and fill the neighborhood streets with traffic.
But talks between the neighbors and the district collapsed on Sept. 21. Three days later, City Council approved a rezoning of the Rosedale site that will allow the development to move forward.
David Hartman, a representative of OHT Partners, the developer collaborating with AISD on the project, described the planned development to Council on Sept. 24, before the vote. Hartman said it meets a number of city goals, particularly the creation of dense housing located near future Project Connect light rail stations, parks, and local businesses. Hartman added that the development would improve the area’s storm sewer infrastructure and pointed out that the developer could have asked for the approval of a 120-foot-high structure, but is only seeking to build one of 75 feet.
A series of Rosedale neighbors spoke next, laying out objections to the proposal. Carl Reynolds of the Rosedale Neighborhood Association said he and other residents have discussed the project with AISD since 2021. Reynolds talked about the deed restrictions on the school site that have necessitated those talks, restrictions dating from the elementary school’s opening in the 1930s, which stipulate that if it is ever closed, the property reverts back to single-family zoning – something that would scuttle the proposed apartment complex. He described how AISD, in order to get the deed restrictions nullified, took the highly unusual step last fall of suing over 100 of his neighbors.
“As a lawyer, I think we have well over a 50% chance of winning that litigation,” Reynolds said, adding that he believes the courts will take at least three years to resolve the suit, so rezoning the property now is premature.
Carol Wagner told Council that she has lived across the street from the Rosedale school for 46 years, having bought her house when she was 27. She emphasized that she and her neighbors are not against development on the site but that they want to see affordable, “missing middle” housing, not a luxury apartment complex.
“When we are characterized as people who just don’t want anything to change, I don’t think that tells the story,” Wagner said. “What we want is thoughtful change. And I think that distinction matters.” Wagner added that as the mother of two daughters educated in AISD schools, she feels betrayed by the district’s decision to sue her. She asked Council to reject the rezoning.
“But I’m not asking you to make a decision based on my feelings alone,” Wagner said. “I’m asking you to understand what these feelings represent. They represent what happens when people who have lived in a community for decades feel their voices don’t count.”
“The saddest part of this zoning vote is that it won’t do anything to get homes built or get AISD paid.”
Rosedale resident Adam Hootnick
Adam Hootnick, a Rosedale resident who helped develop an alternate housing proposal for the site, told Council he had been optimistic the community could reach a compromise with AISD, after Council Member Mike Siegel got a previous vote on the rezoning postponed in May. He presented slides of the neighbors’ alternate proposal, which includes approximately 200 units, with a mix of duplexes, townhomes, and small apartments – the kind of missing middle housing that Council is trying to jump-start across the city.
Hootnick said he believes the rezoning will only lead to a lengthy legal battle and uncertainty for the neighborhood, when the process could have instead been a model for how the city and school district handle future efforts to repurpose closed schools. “The saddest part of this zoning vote is that it won’t do anything to get homes built or get AISD paid,” he said. “What it will do is make it harder to find a win-win outcome, guarantee ongoing legal costs and budgetary uncertainty for the district, and miss an opportunity to create a neighborhood the city can be proud of and a process that can be followed at other repurposed school sites.”
Thirty minutes after Hootnick’s remarks, Siegel, whose District 7 includes parts of the Rosedale neighborhood, expressed his disappointment over the failed negotiations. He also sympathized with his constituents who have been sued by AISD, pointing out that they have had to hire an attorney and respond to document requests, all while fighting against the rezoning. He said the neighbors and AISD had been very close to a compromise before the negotiations collapsed.
“I still hope a settlement will be reached,” Siegel said. “It seems preferable to the all-or-nothing aspect of litigation, where both sides will spend money and time, potentially for years, and either could lose at the end. The district could win the right to build 435 units, or the neighbors could prevent construction of anything more than 50 or 60 units.”
Siegel then won passage of an amendment to the rezoning that directs the city manager to consider the creation of traffic safety improvements on the streets near the Rosedale site. He added that he would vote to approve the rezoning, because it would be the correct zoning even if the community’s alternate development proposal ultimately gets adopted. CM Marc Duchen, whose District 10 also includes parts of Rosedale, said he would vote no, predicting that more school-repurposing cases will come before Council in the near future and that their consideration needs to be more thorough. With that, the Council voted 10-1 to approve the rezoning.
This article appears in October 2 • 2026.
