Attachment F - Opposition - Z-60-23-2.pdf

ATTACHMENT F
PRIMROSE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC. 
15936 N 78th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 
12/14/23 
Adrian Zambrano 
Planning and Development Dept. 
200 W Washington ST, Second Floor 
Phoenix AZ 85003 
Dear Adrian: 
My name is Jim Beatty, and I am writing this letter in response to a pending Zoning Case # Z-60-23-2 Change 
from PUD to A-1.  
I am the owner and original developer of the property at 2629 East Rose Garden Lane adjacent to and directly 
east of your client. 
I am deeply concerned with the idea of the city allowing the proposed ‘re-zoning and use’ next door to our 
facility.  My concern stems from the incompatibility of the proposed ‘zoning and use’ to the adjacent 
properties.  When I researched the area in the early 2000’s, I saw a place ripe for re-development of the horse 
and residential properties to the city’s overlay of light-use commerce park/business park.  It was the right 
location for our development and facility.  I chose to invest in that specific area with confidence, due to my full 
understanding of the surrounding area and the compatible ‘allowed zoning and uses’.  We were not going to 
have to contend with an industrial use next door.   
My tenants and neighbors have counted on the City of Phoenix to be consistent with that.  Later, in 2009, we 
did a multi-million-dollar redevelopment of the 2629 E. Rose Garden facility as a comprehensive Athletic 
Campus and Headquarters of our tenant, the internationally recognized elite training company Exos. 
The Exos training facility encompasses both indoor and outdoor spaces which include outdoor training fields, 
basketball, baseball and track and field areas.  The swimming pool, spa and cold plunge area is in fact adjacent 
to the proposed moving and storage yard, warehouse and loading docks.  Can you imagine professional 
athletes and corporate clients training and rehabilitating outside, just a few yards from diesel tractor trailers, 
moving vans beeping and backing in, and loading/unloading with diesel engines left running constantly? 
... hardly compatible with an elite outdoor fitness facility.  How many hours of that could you take?  
The serious concerns from our tenant will surely end in a loss of our tenants which will result in hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in lost revenues annually.  What would the cost of re-developing our property be?  In that 
case, would we downgrade to become a heavy industrial use such as the one proposed next door, reducing our 
property value and further impacting our revenues?  This would be a snowball effect for the entire business 
park.

2 
I am no stranger to developing and was quite involved in the early 2000’s in this geographical area.  I personally 
developed 3 of the 4 adjacent properties, with over $30M spent, and all located within 50 feet of the proposed 
project. On each of those properties, we spent the necessary time and money to ensure that our proposed use 
was compatible with the adjacent properties.  We only moved forward with compatible uses and we did not 
expect that the existing and future neighbors should suffer at the cost of our design, use or desire. 
 
We worked closely with the City of Phoenix, especially Planning and Development.  We are thankful for the 
folks we worked with, and there are many that may remember the successful process and end products. 
I feel like this developer or end user does not share the same philosophy, and I would ask you to encourage 
them to find a suitable location with the correct zoning in the first place.  Surely the City of Phoenix will 
recognize this and not approve a use or re-zoning that will cause the area such a massive negative impact.  A 
use that we were confident would never be allowed.  On a final note, there seems to be multiple places where 
such a use is already allowed, like Deer Valley, near I-17 or other parts of Phoenix, but certainly not here.  I am 
available to discuss and thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
James H. Beatty 
Primrose Land Development Company LLC.

1
Adrian G Zambrano
From:
Steven Javinett <s.javinett@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 3, 2024 1:18 PM
To:
Adrian G Zambrano
Subject:
Objection letter for Rose Garden rezone request
Re: Zoning Case Z‐60‐23‐2 
  
Hello Adrian, my name is Stephen Javinett and I own the building located at 2625 East Rose 
Garden Lane in Phoenix.  My building is located directly next to and east of the Horses Help 
property and am writing this letter to you to communicate my position regarding the proposed 
development of Muscle Men Moving next door.  
I believe the proposed zoning and use are not allowed in the present zoning and neighborhood, as 
both are not in line with the city’s original overlay and plan and both are not compatible with 
neighboring properties.  The proposed use is non‐compatible with my tenant Exos.  It is also not 
compatible with any other typical future users of my facility.   Exos is a professional athlete 
training company and have extensive outside training facilities located at the building next door to 
my office building.  Exos uses my building to house their operations.   
I strongly disagree with allowing the proposed Muscle Men Moving development rezoning 
request and use. My fear is that it will mean the end of our tenants business at our location.  The 
type of building and use at our location are in direct conflict to a the nature of this business. There 
are zoned areas which support this type of business, this is not now nor was it designed to 
support this zoning change request. The excessive amount of traffic that will be added to this non‐
commercial area is not supported. I believe this is why there are developments that allow that 
and other compatible A1 uses, but not in a corporate business park such as ours.   
I ask that you disallow that development and use, as it will be highly negatively impactful to our 
developed property (that has been there for over 10 years) as well as very negatively impactful on 
the business park as a whole.  I know that it will have a very negative impact on our property 
value.  Furthermore, what happens when they leave that building; Who is coming in next?  I can 
tell you that it won’t be a non‐invasive user.  The only user for that type of building would be 
a high volume mover and transferer of goods and along with that comes a very high volume 
of loud truck and trailer traffic for long long hours of the day and night.  Once you allow an 
invasive use such as the one proposed, it can and will turn the theme and users of the whole 
business park and will be the beginning of the end to what we have today and to what we bought 
into years ago.  To allow the degradation of our higher level zoned properties, by blessing such a 
use makes no sense at all, especially when there are hundreds of other correctly zoned areas in 
the city that were properly designed for their building and use.   
Please consider what this will do to our investment in our adjacent property, our tenant and the 
neighboring quiet use properties and encourage the applicant to move on to compatibly 
zoned location in an industrial community.

2
Thank you for your consideration. 
If you have any questions, you can call me at my number below. 
  
  
  
Sincerely, 
Stephen Javinett 
(602) 721‐4349 
Raptor Funding Group LLC.