Ke Aina Kai Townhomes 3
Preliminary Information – Full Audit Pending
This buildings features were determined from publicly available data, including MLS listings. While we cross-referenced additional data sources, it still likely contains incomplete or inaccurate information, as it has not yet been personally verified.
Once a building has been fully audited, this page will be replaced with an in-depth analysis featuring verified details and photos of every key feature.
Until then, we provide a data‑driven overview that blends statistical analysis of the checkbox selections agents make in MLS with an AI‑powered read of their public remarks—yielding a clearer picture of the building than raw listings alone.
If this building is important to your search, you can help prioritize it for a full audit by requesting one below. To see what a complete report looks like, check out the example full report.
Ke Aina Kai Townhomes 3
Building Overview
Ke Aina Kai Townhomes 3 (neighborhood not specified in MLS): built 1999; pets and short-term rentals are not allowed.
About Ke Aina Kai Townhomes 3
Ke Aina Kai Townhomes 3 is a townhouse community listed in MLS records. According to available records, the development was built in 1999. Specific location/neighborhood, unit sizes, and construction type are not specified in the MLS data provided.
Key rules and policies noted in the MLS entry include that pets are not allowed and short-term rentals are not permitted. The MLS data does not list on-site amenities, common facilities, or HOA services, so no additional amenity information is available from the provided records.
Management company, parking details, HOA fees, and other operational or fee-related information are listed as unknown or are not provided in the MLS. Based on MLS data, buyers should verify all building details, rules, and fees with the listing agent or management prior to making decisions.
Building Features & Data Confidence
All features from MLS data with AI-assisted confidence analysis. Click each category to expand and see details.
No analysis available
Calculated from the lowest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from the highest association fee observed across all non-penthouse unit listings for this building.
Calculated from association fees observed in penthouse unit listings for this building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
All 3/3 current listings indicate common area electricity is included via OTCOEX. There are no public remarks mentioning it, but the MLS inclusion is consistent across every listing, which suggests this is a stable building-level fee item rather than a copy-paste anomaly.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
The evidence leans against hot water being included in the maintenance fee. Across the current listings, none show HOTWAT and two include WTRHTR, which is a strong negative indicator. Public remarks are silent on this point, so the MLS inclusions appear to be the best evidence.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Sewer is consistently included across all current listings: 4/4 show SEWER in the association fee includes. There are no remark-based contradictions, so this appears to be a reliable building-level inclusion rather than a copy-paste anomaly.
Water is included in the association fee on all current listings reviewed, 4/4. The MLS data is completely consistent and there are no public remarks suggesting otherwise, making this a high-confidence building feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong evidence across the listings supports patio/deck-style outdoor space. Multiple remarks explicitly reference a "covered lanai" and outdoor living use, which aligns with the prior high-confidence MLS amenity signal. This looks consistent across agents rather than a one-off mention.
Evidence supports a shared walking/jogging path amenity for the building/community. Three of four current listings have WAJOPA checked, and remarks from multiple agents describe "scenic walking paths" / "scenic paths" rather than a one-off unit feature. This looks like a real building/community amenity, not just a copy-paste checkbox.
No analysis available
Private yard is confirmed in multiple listings with very direct language: "spacious fenced-in yard," "private fenced yard," and "private outdoor oasis." The repeated wording across several remarks strongly supports that this building offers private yard space, not just a generic outdoor area.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No current remarks mention in-unit laundry across the provided listings. The only signal is MLS inclusions in 2 of 4 listings, which is weak and could reflect copy-paste data rather than verified building-wide features. Since there is no explicit support in the remarks, I am not validating laundry_in_unit for this building.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Covered parking is strongly supported. Multiple remarks explicitly mention a "detached 2 car garage" / "detached 2-car garage," and the current MLS parking features show covered/garage parking in all 4 listings. This appears consistent across multiple listings rather than a one-off agent error.
I searched for phrases like deeded parking, owned stall, or parking included in deed and found none. The listing only references a detached two-car garage, which indicates parking availability but not deeded ownership.
No analysis available
I looked for any dollar amount or language about parking rental or monthly parking charges and found nothing. The remarks mention a detached two-car garage, but no separate parking fee is described.
Guest parking appears in 3 of 4 current MLS records, but none of the remarks explicitly describe visitor or guest parking. Because this is a building-level amenity and the MLS data is repeated across most listings, it is reasonable to include with moderate confidence, though it may reflect copy/paste rather than direct remark confirmation.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for "parking waitlist," "waiting list," or instructions to join a parking queue and found none. The remarks simply note a detached two-car garage, with no evidence of a waitlist system.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Central AC is strongly supported: 2 of the 4 listing remarks explicitly say "central AC" or describe a "new air conditioning system." The wording is consistent across agents and aligns with the current MLS data showing ACCEN/CENAC, so this appears to be a genuine building feature rather than a checkbox error.
No analysis available
No analysis available
There is no remark-based evidence for concrete construction in any of the provided listings. The MLS data shows only 1 of 3 listings with CONCRE, which is weak and inconsistent with the need for corroboration from remarks.
Only 1 of 4 listings currently marks double wall construction, and none of the public remarks mention it. This is weak, likely agent-entered MLS data rather than verified remark-based evidence. It is included at low-to-moderate confidence because buyers searching for double-wall construction may still want to know about it if any units have it.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Steel frame is supported by all 4 current MLS listings marking STEFRA. No public remark explicitly says 'steel frame construction,' but the consistency across listings makes this the strongest construction feature in the data. This looks like a stable building attribute rather than a copy-paste anomaly.
Three of four current listings mark slab construction, which suggests this is a common building feature. No remarks explicitly reference a 'concrete slab' or 'solid concrete foundation,' so the evidence is not as strong as steel frame, but it is still persuasive. This appears more consistent than a one-off checkbox.
No analysis available
No analysis available
There is no textual support in the remarks for above-ground construction. The MLS data shows only 1 of 3 listings with ABOGRO, which is too weak to treat as a confirmed building feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for explicit STR language such as short-term rental allowed, legal vacation rental, NUC/TVU references, or minimum-stay exceptions, and found none. Nothing in the remarks suggests this building allows short-term rentals.
I searched for hotel pool terms like hotel rental pool, managed by hotel, Hilton pool, or similar brand programs and found none. Since there is no evidence that STR is allowed, this is also set false by rule.
I looked for language such as mandatory hotel pool, required participation, or cannot opt out and found nothing. With no STR evidence and no rental-pool references, this is not supported by the remarks.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for leasehold wording such as a ground lease end year, lease expiry year, or renewal date, but nothing was stated. Based on the remarks alone, the lease expiry year is unknown.
I searched the remarks for explicit VA language such as "VA approved," "VA financing," and "VA loans accepted" and found none. The remarks focus on upgrades, location, and short-sale status, but do not indicate VA eligibility.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Flood zone determined from official FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) data using building coordinates, not from agent-reported listing data.
No analysis available
No analysis available
There is no remark-level evidence that this building offers mountain views. Although 1/4 MLS entries show MOUNTA, the other 3/4 are NONE and the descriptions focus on yard, lanai, AC, and community amenities instead, which suggests the view checkbox may be inconsistent or copied.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
None of the public remarks mention garden/courtyard/landscaped views. With only 1/4 MLS listings showing GARDEN and the rest marked NONE, this looks more like an inconsistent MLS entry than a confirmed building-level feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
There is no mention of sunrise-oriented views in the public remarks. Since only 1/4 MLS entries show SUNRIS while 3/4 are NONE, the evidence points to an inconsistent or copied view field rather than a dependable building feature.
No current listing remarks explicitly support sunset views for this building, and the MLS view data is uniformly NONE across all 3 listings. The lone mention of 'sunset stroll' appears to describe the community setting rather than a true sunset view feature, so this looks like copy-paste marketing rather than evidence of the amenity.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Confidence levels are based on MLS checkbox data and AI analysis of listing remarks. High = strong evidence, Medium = some evidence, Low = limited or conflicting evidence. Buyers should always verify critical details independently.