So far only 2 resorts have been expanded to be DVC. AKL and the Contemporary. The tree houses could be considered a third but it was a considerably different situation. That argument is valid for AKL because creating additional animal car facilities and a Savannah would be incredibly expensive and it simply maid sense to expand what was there. In the case of the Contemporary they had to demolish nearly 1/3 of the resort and greatly reduce the non-DVC capacity one of Disney's most popular resorts. I seriously doubt they would do this in order to avoid building a couple of stores, a lobby and a restaurant if the land next door was suitable for a high rise building and could have more convenient access to the monorail. There are just too many marks in the con column to justify what Disney did if the property next door was good to go.
No idea on this one. If you are in the construction business, and I am assuming that you are, you know as well as I do that maps like this can go decades with nothing more than the date being updated. The land also might be just fine for building a 1 or 2 story structure that could be used as a resort but not much more. It would be hard to argue that a small structure like that would look quite out of place.
Installing 18 monorail supports is considerably different than a multistory building. There is also no information as to how much of than land presents a problem. For all we know there is one bad area that is throwing a monkey wrench into the majority of the site
