The City of Brentwood Architectural Review Board on June 18 tabled an application for a new single‑family house at 9021 Pine Avenue after board members and nearby residents questioned the building's height, exterior materials and the design of the prominent corner elevation.

The board's discussion focused on massing, neighborhood context and materials. Chair, Architectural Review Board, summarized that the board's primary concerns were the proposed house's height relative to adjacent homes and the amount of siding on the street‑facing corner. Board member Paul Turner and Board member Matt Forman joined the discussion and asked the applicant to consider lowering internal floor or roof heights and adding masonry on primary faces.

Cameron Coleman, Levine Associates Architects, spoke for the owner and presented site plans and elevations. Coleman confirmed the project sits on a corner lot and that the submitted plans show lap siding with shake accents and an asphalt shingle roof but did not include finalized color samples. Coleman said the contractor has "earth tones" under consideration but that specific color elevations were not ready at the meeting.

Neighbors pressed for brick. Joe Edelman, of 9012 Pine Avenue, told the board that the houses on the block are "full masonry" and asked whether the project would use masonry veneer or full masonry. Richard Kuntz of 9109 Pine said the existing house on the lot "needs to be replaced" but voiced concern about construction impacts and whether the new home would fit the block's character.

Board members suggested actionable revisions: adding a brick wainscot or full brick on the first floor, wrapping masonry around the corner to avoid a large blank face visible from the street, and reworking a second‑floor bay to improve corner articulation. Members discussed lowering ceiling heights (from the proposed 9 feet on the second floor or adjusting roof pitch from 8/12) to reduce perceived volume. The board asked the applicant to return with revised, color‑annotated elevations for the next meeting.

Procedural outcome: Chair moved to table the application so the applicant can revise elevations and material details; Paul Turner seconded and the motion carried with the board voting in favor and none opposed. The board instructed the applicant to submit revisions at least two weeks before the next meeting (the staff indicated the next meeting is July 17 and that materials are posted online one week before the meeting).

The board noted that this decision was procedural: no permit or final approval was granted. The board emphasized that its comments were intended to help the design better fit the established neighborhood context and that staff will circulate the requested revision notes to the applicant.

Looking ahead: The applicant will work with staff to provide revised elevations with color samples, consider masonry treatment on the south and west faces and provide alternate massing studies. The revised materials will determine whether the application returns on the agenda for the July meeting.