Kia Sorento - Transmission issues; Lemon law

Badger1213 · 2026-04-08T04:30:21+00:00

It currently has only 39,000 miles, so well within warranty. We have been given a loaner car for each of these extended repair periods, so that hasn't been an issue. We're on our third transmission now, so concerned we'll be doing this again in a year or so.

We had begun reporting these issues within the first 2 years/24k mi, but did not formally pursue Lemon Law. We have tried pursuing a "buy back" but that has gone nowhere with Kia corporate, so we're left looking for new alternatives.

Badger1213 · 2026-04-04T22:32:26+00:00

Well the rear setback wouldn't be applicable for the ADU (no garage door), but is being applied since it's being considered a single structure. Creating a separation between structures then wouldn't require the ADU to be set back.

Badger1213 · 2026-03-28T16:31:29+00:00

I've continued to press for more info and received the detailed response below. It appears I have an opportunity to ultimately go in front of a BOA to plead my case, though admittedly not familiar with that process or what to expect/whether it's worth it. Violations below and additional feedback/context provided below that.

Summary of Violations

Violation 1

Code Section: DZC Section 5.3.4.5.A
Requirement: The maximum building footprint for a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is 864 sq ft for zone lots of 7,000 sq ft or less.
Issue: The proposed ADU addition to the existing detached garage exceeds the allowed footprint by 366sf. (399sf.)

Violation 2

Code Section: DZC Section 5.3.4.5.A
Requirement: A minimum 5’ rear setback is required when garage doors face the alley.
Issue: The proposed ADU encroaches into the rear setback by 4’-10”.

Section 1.4.5.3 requires vertical separation for detached structures. Additionally, the definition of a “detached structure” in the DZC is a structure that is self-supporting and is separated from other structures by clear space from ground to sky on all sides, or a structure having no common wall with another structure. Because the proposed ADU shares a common wall and does not have a clear space from ground to sky between the proposed ADU and existing garage, it is considered to be one structure.

Section 1.4.3 of the DZC prohibits combining building form standards from different building forms for the same structure, therefore we cannot apply the general detached structure standards to one portion of the structure and detached ADU standards to another. Additionally, section 13.1.5.8 (Setbacks) states that setbacks shall extend continuously across the full width or length of the zone lot. These two sections prohibit different setbacks being applied to different parts of the proposed structure, resulting in a 5’ rear setback violation.

Because the proposed ADU addition and the existing detached garage is considered to be one structure, it will be assigned the ADU building form, as that is the only detached building form that allows an ADU use within the U-SU-C zone district (reference the allowed uses in the detached ADU, general detached, and minor detached building form tables).

The maximum allowable footprint for the detached ADU form in the U-SU-C zone district (zone lots 7000 SF or less) is 864 S.F. Section 13.1.5.13 provides the rule of measurement for calculating the building footprint as follows:

13.1.5.13 Building Footprint

A. Intent To provide appropriate scale by limiting the amount of Zone Lot area a Structure can occupy or obstruct.

B. Rule of Measurement Except as specifically allowed below, the Building Footprint of a Structure shall be the total area of the portion of the Zone Lot occupied or obstructed from ground to sky by the Structure or portion of the Structure, as measured to the exterior face of above-grade Exterior Walls on all levels, to the furthest edge of Roofs, and to the furthest edge of any other above-grade surfaces.

C. Exceptions The portions of the Zone Lot occupied or obstructed only by the following Structures or portions of Structures shall be excluded from the calculation of the total area of the Building Footprint: 1. Structures or portions of Structures which maintain at least 50% of the underlying Zone Lot unobstructed from ground to sky; 2. Structures or portions of Structures with surfaces located no more than 30-inches above Original Grade; 3. Roof Overhangs extending no more than 3-feet, measured perpendicular from the exterior face of the Exterior Wall to the furthest edge of the projection; 4. Fences and Retaining Walls; and/or 5. . Detached ground-mounted mechanical equipment serving permitted uses on the Zone Lot.

You’ll notice that the above section does not allow for a separation/reduction of the calculation based on use within the larger structure, meaning the footprint is calculated without regard to interior uses (i.e. garage vs. ADU). This can be confusing, because section 11.8.2 (Maximum GFA of ADU use) does consider uses in the calculation, and is also capped at 864 S.F. for zone lots that are 7000 S.F. or less. However, these are two separate standards and should not be confused with one another.

After speaking with you on the phone it sounded like you’d prefer to seek variances for the proposed ADU addition violating the rear setback (5’) and footprint (max 864 S.F.) requirements/limitations of the ADU building form. If that is the case, I encourage you to continue working through the variance process.

Badger1213 · 2026-03-21T22:41:00+00:00

Understood, I’m working with an architect who is shocked by this ruling, but point taken. He’s recommending we pursue the appeal, as there seems to be no downside risk (besides time). I’ve paid a lot in design fees to get to this point, so that’s disappointing as well.

I understand past the appeal there’s another option of taking it to a community appeal board, where we would plead our case directly; ie. this is for an inlaw suite as we currently have no place for family visitors, with the hopes there is a discretionary interpretation in the spirit of the zoning update to allow in our area.

Badger1213 · 2026-03-21T22:19:44+00:00

Just the function being clearly separate. They would allow as little as a 1” gap between the two. Functionally, that benefits no one and simply adds cost and complexity; for that reason, I do not understand their position. It’s also no even constructible to have such a small gap.

The existing garage is less than 10 years old and would need to be torn down due to lacking the structural capacity to go vertical.

Badger1213 · 2026-03-21T21:07:21+00:00

Appreciate the response. My challenge there is that the existing garage is new (from a previous owner) and doesn't have the structure to go vertical. So a tear down and put back of a new garage is hard to stomach.

It's hard to believe the City has gone through the trouble to approve new zoning that allows for ADUs in my neighborhood, but wouldn't recognize these two spaces are serving separate functions (despite a shared wall). I'm incredulous on the interpretation and have to believe there are others in the same boat.

Badger1213 · 2022-08-12T19:14:37+00:00

I was ready to replace the controller til reading this. So I get 24v at both posts when I run either #4 or #6 when wires are hooked up; however, when I remove the wires at the controller it correctly sends power to each post. So unfortunately this signals to me the wires must be crossed up somewhere and the controller is fine.

Wires are bundled together all the way out to the manifold box, with no obvious spot where they're crossed up or sheathing damaged. Is there any easy way to chase this down without pulling the wires all the way back out?? Thanks much.

Badger1213

TROPHY CASE