Ke Noho Kai Townhomes V
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 Noho Kai Townhomes V
Building Overview
Ke Noho Kai Townhomes V in Ewa, built 2004; no pets and no short-term rentals allowed, per MLS data.
About Ke Noho Kai Townhomes V
Based on MLS data, Ke Noho Kai Townhomes V is located in the Ewa neighborhood and was built in 2004. Size (square footage/unit count) and construction type are not specified in the available MLS records.
According to available records, the community does not allow pets and short-term rentals are prohibited. The management company is listed as unknown in the MLS data. No specific amenity list (pool, gym, etc.) is provided in the available information.
MLS data do not include details on parking, maintenance fees, or homeowner association specifics for this building. Buyers should verify all property details, rules, fees, and management information with the listing agent or association before 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
I looked for owner-occupancy data, including explicit percentages and qualitative descriptions, but found nothing in the remarks. Because no numeric or descriptive occupancy information is provided, the value remains unknown.
I searched the public remarks for any elevator references, but none were included. This appears to be a townhome/community-home listing, and the remarks only describe the unit and garage, not building vertical transportation.
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
No listing remarks explicitly mention common area electricity, common electric, or building power included. With only 3/5 MLS records showing OTCOEX, the evidence looks inconsistent and possibly copy-pasted rather than verified.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
There are no public remarks about sewer included or sewer in HOA fees. The 3/5 MLS checkbox signal is mixed and could reflect agent inconsistency rather than a confirmed building-wide inclusion.
No listing remarks mention water included, water in HOA, or water fees included. The current MLS pattern is split at 3/5, which suggests possible checkbox inconsistency rather than dependable confirmation.
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 listing remarks describe a jogging or walking path, so there is no public-text support for this amenity. The lone MLS amenity check appears more likely to be unchecked or copied data than a confirmed shared feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
There are 0 public-remark mentions of a recreation area or related shared amenity. The single MLS checkbox out of five listings is not enough to support inclusion here, especially given the lack of descriptive confirmation.
Across the provided remarks, there are 0 mentions of a recreation room or comparable amenity. The only signal is the current MLS checkbox in 1/5 listings, which is weak without any supporting description from agents or site notes.
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
4 out of 5 listings show washer/dryer in the inclusions, which suggests in-unit laundry is commonly available in this building. None of the public remarks explicitly mention laundry, so this appears to be MLS checkbox data rather than repeated agent commentary. There is not enough evidence to call it universal, but enough to treat it as an available building feature.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Strong, consistent evidence supports covered parking for this building. All 5 MLS listings show covered/garage parking, and multiple remarks describe a detached or enclosed 2-car garage, indicating this is not just checkbox noise.
I looked for terms like deeded parking, owned stall, or parking included in deed and found none. The garage is described as part of the home context, but the remarks do not explicitly confirm deeded parking.
No analysis available
I searched for parking rental fees, monthly charges, or additional parking costs and found no references. The listings mention a detached garage and guest parking, but do not state any separate parking fee.
Guest parking appears to be a real building feature, though it is mentioned less consistently than covered parking. The current MLS data shows 3 of 5 listings with guest parking, and at least one remark explicitly confirms it, suggesting moderate-to-strong support rather than a copy-paste-only entry.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I looked for any mention of a parking waitlist, joining a waitlist, or limited parking access requiring a queue, and found nothing. With no evidence in the remarks, this remains unconfirmed.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No listing remarks mention a security guard or security personnel, and there is no corroborating language like '24-hour security' or 'on-site security.' With only 1 of 5 MLS records checking SECGUA and no supporting remarks, the evidence is weak and leans against including this amenity.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Central AC is repeatedly confirmed in the remarks across 4/5 listings, including phrases like "Enjoy central AC," "With central AC," "Featuring central AC throughout," and "Central air keeps you comfortable." The repeated, consistent language across multiple listings supports this as a real building feature and matches the current MLS indicators.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
All 5 current listings are marked double wall in MLS data, making this the strongest construction signal in the set. The public remarks do not discuss construction, but the unanimous checkbox pattern suggests this is a building-wide feature rather than a one-off agent entry.
No analysis available
No analysis available
3 of 5 current listings are marked as steel frame, but none of the public remarks explicitly mention steel framing or construction details. Because the remarks are silent and appear largely standardized, this looks more like MLS metadata than verified text evidence, so confidence is modest.
3 of 5 current listings indicate slab construction, which suggests the feature may apply to some or all units but is not fully consistent across the listings. No public remark explicitly confirms a concrete slab foundation, so this remains moderate-confidence evidence.
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for STR-related language such as short-term rental allowed, legal vacation rental, NUC, or TVU and found no references. The remarks do not provide evidence that STR is allowed, so this is treated as not supported by the available text.
I looked for hotel pool language such as hotel rental program, managed by hotel, or branded pool participation, but found none. Since there is also no evidence that short-term rentals are allowed, this must remain false.
I searched for mandatory rental pool wording such as required participation, cannot opt out, or must be in the rental program and found nothing. With no evidence of STR being allowed or of any pool program, mandatory participation is not supported.
No analysis available
No analysis available
I searched for lease expiry language such as ground lease end dates, leasehold expiration years, or renewal terms, but found none. The only land-tenure clue is "Fee Simple," which indicates this does not appear to be a leasehold property.
The listings explicitly reference VA assumable financing, which is strong evidence that VA financing is available for this building/unit context. I did not find any conflicting remarks denying VA use.
I searched for insurance-related phrases such as 'fully insured,' 'walls-in coverage,' or 'full insurance,' but the remarks do not mention them. There is no evidence here to support a fully insured HOA/building claim.
No analysis available
I looked for explicit language indicating a passed fire/life safety evaluation or similar compliance statements, but found none. Without any such mention in the remarks, there is no evidence to mark this as true.
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
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
No analysis available
Garden/courtyard-style views appear in a minority of current MLS entries (2 of 5). None of the public remarks explicitly mention a garden view, so this looks like building/unit-specific MLS data rather than a widely described feature, but it is enough to suggest some units offer it.
No analysis available
No analysis available
Sunrise/eastern exposure is only hinted at in 1 of 5 current MLS listings. Public remarks do not mention morning sun or eastern exposure, so confidence is limited and the feature may be inconsistently entered by agents.
Sunset/western exposure appears in just 1 of 5 current MLS listings. The public remarks are silent on sunset views, so this likely reflects a unit-level view rather than a consistently advertised building feature.
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.