LE SUEUR — For any longtime resident, or traveler down Highway 169, it has always been the “pop can silo.”

When the silo near Le Sueur was first painted as a Coca Cola can, Minnesota Vikings coach Bud Grant — after his trip down to training camp in Mankato — made note of it during a press conference.

At a St. Peter performance in the 1970s, singer Michael Johnson asked concert goers, “So what else do you folks do down here besides paint soda cans on silos?”

State troopers and travelers use it as a landmark. There are photos of it on Facebook and blog pages from around the world.

Today, the freshly painted silo has state and county officials pitted against the successful Davis family, owners of agribusiness companies and the Cambria quartz countertop company.

When they painted the silo black with their Cambria company’s golden dragon logo and name on it, they — and the silo’s owner, Lee Boyum — ran afoul of Minnesota Department of Transportation and Nicollet County zoning rules. The sign is in a conservancy area that generally bans advertising signs.

The silo as a sign goes back to the early 1970s when local Coca Cola manager Don Hentges bought the farm and painted the Coke can on his silo. When he had an ugly parting of the ways with Coke, he found payback by contacting Fred Lutz, then owner of the North Mankato-based 7-Up bottling company.

“He asked if we wanted to change it, so we painted a 7-Up can on it. We had a lot of fun with it,” Lutz said.

Painting the brick silo wasn’t easy or cheap. Lutz remembers spending about $6,500 each time it was painted and paying $300 to $400 a month rent to the land owner. They never had a run-in over permits in the conservancy zone, but there was one requirement to allow the silo to be an advertisement — they had to sell 7-Up products on site.

“We always had an old vending machine out there by the silo. There was a Coke machine before that. We never sold much of anything.”

When he sold the business in 1992, the 7-Up silo was left to weather and deteriorate until last year when the Davis family had it painted. They also fixed up the neighboring barn, which they rent for storage. Because the “non-conforming” sign hadn’t been maintained, it was no longer grandfathered in to zoning rules.

Neither MnDOT nor the county are eager to take credit for taking on a fight in which the public seems decidedly pro-silo sign. MnDOT officials say Nicollet County was taking the lead on the issue, while county officials say it’s MnDOT’s baby.

But both say they’re simply enforcing the rules.

“We agree it’s very nice looking,” said Rebecca Arndt of MnDOT. “But if you let one do it, you have to let everyone do it.”   

Nicollet County Administrator Bob Podhradsky, too, says rules are rules and the river bluffs along 169 are in a conservancy to protect the scenic views. “Typically, you don’t see signs on 169, and that’s by design.”

But he also has his own silo memories.

“Years ago, when I came over from South Dakota to Twins and Vikings games, we’d judge our trip by it. We’d say, ‘We’re almost there; there’s the Coke silo.’”

Lutz’s allegiance in the debate is squarely with the Davis family. “The state’s been fighting this for a year and a half. Why are they wasting money on this? The property is fixed up, the barn, landscaping,” Lutz said.

“It’s a landmark. People remember it and like it.”

Interestingly, while the silo owner can’t paint a sign, there is no zoning barrier in the conservancy district to prevent him from painting just about anything else on it: Green with pink polka dots is fine; raving religious or political slogans on the silo is constitutionally protected speech.

If forced, they could probably take the Cambria name off, alter their well known logo a bit and be OK.

Or they could put wheels on the silo. Not far away, off the southbound lane of 169, sits a trailer with a sign advertising a taxidermy business — a sign that’s been there for years. Licensed vehicles, say officials, don’t come under sign regulations.  

The Davis family, which has so far lost in court, will be back at 1 p.m. Aug. 27 at the St. Peter courthouse, arguing their case.