I'm going to add to this because the OP is evidently Missing In Action and is not getting emails, so there's no pain inflicted on her, and the original question has been dealt with anyway. QBC, your attitude is very dated. Current realities in sexual identity politics are different, at least in the modern world. Your own screen name marks the difference. Sexuality was once regarded, and to some extent correctly so, like skin colour: as an unchangeable reality. Because it was difficult or dangerous to be homosexual you lived a heterosexual life if you could, and only lived differently if you were seriously driven to do so. With that view, a campaign for inclusion and respect was warranted for sexuality just as it was for skin colour. But success can be your worst enemy. One side effect of the campaign for inclusion has been a measure of recruitment, so that a large number of people who might otherwise have grown up to unquestioningly live a reasonably satisfactory heterosexual life now identify as bisexual or fully homosexual. Alternate sexual identities are now understood to be a choice. And with that, accommodation also becomes a matter of choice for mainstream society. Any actual duty to accommodate vanishes. In short, choice cuts both ways. Now, rather than being viewed as one would regard a spinal injury, respectfully but with a tinge of regret, sexual identity is more like vegetarianism, which a meat-eating culture is under no obligation whatsoever to accommodate except to the degree that (a) vegetarians themselves arrange for each other and (b) it serves the norm to do so (hence veg options in meat restaurants). In the current sexual reality, we all have a right to recruit, and it is perfectly fair for the mainstream to recruit as aggressively and even to win as it is for the alternatives - indeed, meat eating is making a comeback; I'm even challenging my own vegetarianism of 30 years and wishing I hadn't brought my kids up to not eat meat. In any case, no matter how tolerant society is of homosexuality, and no matter how celebratory homosexuality is of itself, there is a particular value to a strong heterosexual norm and so its expression should not be oppressed even in a climate of accommodation. On a society-wide basis, heterosexuality is like democracy, which Churchill deemed the worst form of government except for all the others. Heterosexuality is the worst system of partnership except for all the others - although it doesn't work out well for some people, it has proven to be sustainable and yet capable of change, genetically healthy, and reasonably safe for children. Furthermore, having a strong norm is by far the healthiest way for children to grow up - given that we all have some degree of bisexuality at least, how do you pick your place on the sexual identity spectrum without a strong norm in which you either sense you fit or don't and when each spot can sell itself as equally alluring? Ambiguity or the sexual buffet approach does not serve children well in terms of setting them up for having the best chance of a committed long term relationship that will be solid base for the upbringing of their own children. It's like trying to lay out a yard with no design principles. It is certainly indisputable that not all children will grow up to be straight. But that does not mean all children should be presumed to be equally likely to be homosexual. Not giving it equal billing is not equivalent to being a bigot. Your response to Ink illustrates the extent to which every oppressed minority has the potential to become, in its turn, an oppressor. This is pretty characteristic of the LGBT community; you can trust me on that as I live in the thick of it as an apparent heterosexual. This is not a kind or inclusive community. They view the world in absolute black and white, having no scruples about casting everyone who lives a heterosexual life, including the parents of the children they recruit, as being black (homophobic, in LGBT-speak). It's like everyone white is a racist, or every non Jew an anti-Semite and an anti-Zionist. If you're not with us you're against us and all that. It's pretty simplistic, juvenile... and above all, divisive. Tribal, if you will. Primitive. 1984. And ruthless, like all ideologies, which is what homosexuality has now, sadly, become. In the current context of LGBT politics, Ink's comment wasn't political. Yours was. KarinL

Option 5 is probably my favorite... I need to see the whole picture (floor) though for better context. My brain works best to shift spaces). But, I am going to point you in the direction of a number of houses by a local designer here (in WA state). They design for a narrow lot with 3 garages (tandem style). You might get some inspiration from them. The homes I've been in from this designer are very livable... When you view this plan at this site, you can choose "view other plans by this designer" and you'll see a few variations of the entry from a 3 car tandem design on a narrow home... Also, I think you'll get more help if you start a new thread with your specific questions. I had mostly ignored this thread because it was from March and I wasn't aware that it had essentially a new question on it. Here is a link that might be useful: one of the plans

Doug already knows my views about cooktops on islands. So, I didn't share it when critiquing the original design. My opinion only, but putting a cooking surface on the island is a decision of last resort. Both safety and efficiency are compromised by this type of arrangement. I think the Buehl's idea of using that beautiful front window area for dining is inspired. It would get you and additional 28 sq.ft. in the kitchen. That's not chump change. That front window would be a lovely spot to sit with a cup of coffee and watch the kids. The light would be glorious. Seriously consider moving the kitchen to the rear, moving the dining room to take advantage of the window and sew/craft in the now freed up space in the front of the house, The old dining room in front could be used for a flex room/library/study/extra bedroom for overflow guests/sewing room/home office. Like Doug will tell you, everything is a compromise. Every decision effects another decision. It's just a question of how many comprises you have to make.

@partim I would normally agree about not placing the headboard in front of the window. Of course with my room being so small, it seems I only have about three positions to place the bed. On the end wall, the wall aligned with the door, or the wall with the window. I believe the idea of placing the head of my bed on the wall with the door can be eliminated. Primarily due to the fact that if I center the bed on that wall, then I would have to offset the TV to one side of the window. This seems like it would bring a sense of asymmetry into the room. Which I really don't like the sense of asymmetry. So, at least in my opinion, there are only two options for bed placement. The window wall or the end wall. If I place the bed on the end wall, then I have an issue with TV placement. If I place the bed on the window wall then I might run into an issue with covering up the window. What would everyone think if I did place the bed on the window wall, but had a lower platform bed? Perhaps something that would not be high enough to cover any of the window. Let me know your thoughts.