Well, we do use the outlet for Christmas light. I am planning on painting it the color of the wall (cover and outlet both so it just "goes away"). The window is a double hung because from the outside it looks like the other windows on the 2nd floor. The house is called a "Victorian Farmhouse", so the windows across the front all look the same, you aren't supposed to think it has a 2 story foyer from the outside. Perhaps when we do replace it someday, we will choose a different style for there. Now you see why I'm interested in adding the faux window below it...too much wall space between the window and the door. This option will cost nothing, so I can try it out to see since I have that antique window in my family room hiding the hideous fireplace insert....I do like the idea of adding trim to the window, but none of the other windows in the house have this, but I guess it would match the door. There is just too much wall space in this foyer. I really want to add wood wainscott to the stairs and hall areas. But I have to take my dh into consideration...I think his bp is high enough! I'm also considering having some of our travel photos (upcoming European cruise) printed in b/w on canvas for the foyer--really large ones. This might help eat up some of the wall space. My dh keeps telling me to "just do a David Bromstad painting technique on canvas"--yeah right. thanks for the ideas.

Dormers are essentially required for attic (in the roof) square footage. I am not a building code expert but I am pretty sure that bedrooms require windows, assuming you want bedrooms on more than either end of the house they require dormers. As to your first drawing, houses similar to that (I forget the style) can be very striking and are very nice. I am not sure that they are cheaper to build than just going straight up, especially in Minnesota wher the snow load on the second roof is going to have to get transfered down to the foundation. If your plan has walls that will carry that load then it might be great, but that would essentially eliminate an open floorplan. I would think that the additional bracing required to have an open floorplan, modifications to the roof (essentially turning one roof into three), and the additional complexity of the plan would significantly eat into the cost savings that were the whole reason for the lesser square footage. Looking at the floorplan, I am assuming Lauren doesn't mean adding square footage over the garage roof, rather, building a second floor on most of the first floor (all that is not covered by the garage roof) and putting some additional one floor only square footage under the roof that also covers the garage. I think that would be fine, especially, if you can get the garage entrance turned sideways.

Some additional thoughts about second floor window boxes. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I have 2. One is at the height of my waist if I am standing inside in front of the window and has no furniture in front of it. That one is a snap to water and tend. The other is a little higher and has shelving in front of it. So for that one, I have to use a little step ladder and reach over the shelving. Deadheading is a bigger chore for me than watering. So either pick plants that will continue to bloom without deadheading, or commit yourself to that task. Stained wood might be pretty, so long as it is not too dark and then I'd replace the door with a wood one. I'd also get lighter/brighter pots for the front entry area. The original post was from 3 years ago. So sunny1785, if you are following this thread still. I would love to see what you did.

"... planning to bring the drive up as high as possible now, though ... we don't want it so high that it starts to block that lower-level window on the left." Your problem with getting good feedback is going to be that you're starting this process without properly introducing people to the surrounding site. We have only a snippet of information ... more or less a theoretical house front. Not a complete front yard or a driveway or even a good picture that shows the land/house relationship. As it is, every solution offered is already limited by your own preconceived notions, which limit what you show us. We've been here before and didn't come to a conclusion that you got excited. The set-up now is little different. Whatever you do architecturally, outside of changing the main entrance to the basement floor, will make no difference insofar as solving the problem, which has not yet been clearly identified (the path from parking-to-front-door problem.) No one can investigate how changing the approach to the house might work toward solving your problem. Most other threads on the forum seem to reach a more or less successful conclusion because they involve a little planting or a simple problem. Here, the problem is much more complex, but the base information is threadbare. Like a newspaper that starts with the front page headlines, and then goes to article titles, and then on to elaboration of details, is how you should be presenting information. We should see the whole front yard at a distance, some sequential pictures that show the present approach, some wide span scenes (from slightly overlapping pictures) that show the area from at least 2, or maybe three different points of view, since there is topography involved. (Each point of view should be a complete scene ... not a disconnected picture.) A landscape architect could not assess and explore the issue with so little information to go on. I'm not trying to be a downer about your thread or issue, but trying to say if you want to be happy when you leave, you've got to produce enough information to work with.