"This is unconscionable," City Councilman Soren Simonsen fumed in a missive sent late Thursday to the top offices in City Hall. "This approval for demolition is completely contrary to the intent language of the master plan."

In a hearing last month, the Planning Commission told developer Craig Mecham, who owns much of the so-called Granite Block, that a site plan must be submitted before demolition permits would be granted.

But Mecham, who was traveling Friday and could not be reached, has not complied.

Instead, he has applied for a landscape plan - Simonsen calls it a "loophole" - which the city is prepared to grant. The move would outline requirements to keep the property "neat" - it includes shrubs and shade trees - in return for a demolition permit.

Meanwhile, a council-funded contractor is conducting a survey that aims to determine whether the Sugar House buildings are eligible for either the local or National Register of Historic Places.

Joel Paterson, the city's planning program supervisor, confirmed the survey, which cost between $50,000 and $100,000, is not finished.

The Granite Block buildings are neither in a historic district nor listed on Salt Lake City's historic registry, according to Paterson. And, he notes, a designation on the national register does not equal sanctuary.

"It's an honorary type of thing," he said, paving the way for tax credits but not necessarily protection.

Still, scores of Sugar House residents and preservationists are pleading with the Planning Commission to tread lightly.

Simonsen points out the Blue Boutique building has been nominated by both the Utah Historic Preservation Office and the city's Historic Landmarks Commission for a spot on the national register.

The structure, just west of the 2100 South and 1100 East intersection, used to house both the Granite Lumber Co. and a ZCMI cooperative.

No one seems to know the exact year the building was built or its comprehensive history. Neither the city nor the developer could produce dates or documents during last month's public hearing. Instead, Mecham displayed black-and-white photos of the facade from the 1920s that showed a similar storefront that exists on the structure today.

During the hearing, both the developer and planning commissioners speculated the building and its neighboring structures may date back to the turn of the century.

Even so, Mecham has insisted multiple add-ons have ruined any value and rendered it unsafe.

In an e-mail to the planning staff Thursday, Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace said Mecham could move forward with demolition, even without a building permit.

"I am unaware of any reason why the property owner would not be able to obtain a demolition permit based upon an approved landscaping plan rather than a reuse plan," Pace wrote.

Simonsen, who represents Sugar House, was left nonplussed.

"It's a back door," he said Friday.

In his e-mail, Simonsen asks "how on earth" the city could allow the landscape route to proceed when it runs contrary "in every way to the adopted policies and intent language that we have worked for years to develop."

"I find it preposterous that this apparent loophole in our ordinance, albeit subject to considerable interpretation, would give us no practical means by which to implement our master plan, and do the right thing for our community, and protect one of our cherished neighborhood business districts from inappropriate development."

Mayor Rocky Anderson called a meeting Friday to mull the demolition issue.

"It probably would be a good idea if they wait for the site plan to be approved," Planning Director George Shaw said Friday.

Still, Shaw said a landscape plan could greenlight demolition, providing Mecham keeps the site clean and adds the proper vegetation.

Depending on approvals, that may mean the stretch of Sugar House near the monument on 2100 South could remain empty - albeit with drought-tolerant plants - indefinitely.

Mecham hopes to add a six-story office tower, high-end condos, restaurants and shops to the area long known as an eclectic hub for merchants and hipsters. If the project is approved, work still could begin by year's end. The overall construction timeline sits between a year and two years.

The controversy marks the latest in a long line that recently prompted Community Development Director Louis Zunguze to order an overhaul of the city's planning and permitting operation. That makeover still is under way.

Mary DeLaMare-Schaefer, the deputy director, said the revamp was long overdue.

"We all agree the car needs a tune-up and the tires are flat, but we insist on going 100 miles per hour," she said. "That can't continue. Planners know the changes need to be made."

djensen@sltrib.com