Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Athletics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Cloud district previews 742 Multipurpose Athletic Center planned at Apollo High School
Summary
Architects and district leaders presented schematic designs for a year-round indoor turf facility at Apollo High School, describing schedule, layout, accessibility features and trade-offs including mezzanine scope and field sizing.
St. Cloud Area School District 742 leaders on Tuesday reviewed schematic designs for a proposed indoor turf facility — presented as the “742 Multipurpose Athletic Center” — to be located on the grounds of Apollo High School.
The presentation, led by Ryan Rademacher of JLG Architects and Apollo Principal Justin Scalarud, outlined the building footprint, field striping priorities, accessibility and an overall timeline that places construction bidding in early 2026 and onsite work through 2026–27. "We are currently in design development," Rademacher said, adding that construction documents are scheduled for Sept. 22–Dec. 19 and bidding in January–February.
The project is sized around a high school regulation soccer field with a surrounding walking track and a mezzanine for batting cages and golf simulators. The floor plan shows a turf field with color-coded striping to support soccer, football practices, lacrosse and softball practice layouts, and a wraparound track intended for walking and training. The design includes a reception and lobby, team room, office, storage and multiple restroom types including single-user and accessible facilities, plus exterior restrooms for adjacent outdoor fields.
Why it matters: District officials said the facility would provide year-round athletic practice and wellness space for district teams and the wider community, addressing weather-related limits on outdoor play and consolidating underused adjacent fields. The project also raises trade-offs about cost, footprint and how much of the mezzanine and interior area to finish.
Key details: Rademacher and Scalarud described the main elements and constraints: - Schedule: schematic design completed April–July; final design development due Sept. 19; construction documents Sept. 22–Dec. 19; bidding Jan–Feb 2026; construction 2026–27. - Field and interior: primary driver is a high-school regulation soccer field; turf area with a surrounding track; permanent ceiling netting and a mechanically operated center divider curtain to split the field for simultaneous smaller activities. - Mezzanine uses: batting cages roughly 28 feet by 70 feet (divisible), space for up to four golf simulators, and storage and circulation; mezzanine does not span the full facility width. - Restrooms and accessibility: a mix of single-user and handicap-accessible restrooms, including adult and child changing stations; limited-use lift to mezzanine for accessibility. - Spectator options: portable/roll-in bleachers and mezzanine viewing were discussed as potential viewing arrangements; visibility from the proposed scoreboard locations was considered.
Board members asked about security and controlled access. Scott Andresen raised concern that someone could enter past the receptionist; Rademacher and Principal Scalarud said entry points will be secured and that staff would control access during school uses and rentals. "When we have rentals ... that person is going to be, essentially buzzing people in," Scalarud said, describing a controlled check-in process.
Members also pressed on facility footprint and whether a full-length 11-on-11 football field could fit; Rademacher said a full-size football field would require about 60 additional feet in length and a substantially higher cost. On the mezzanine, several board members asked whether extending the mezzanine across the full facility would be feasible; architects said extending the precast plank mezzanine across would add substantial cost and might not deliver proportional value.
Budget and scope notes: Presenters said the mezzanine was not part of the original referendum package but was added during design with efficiency gains. Board members emphasized that some design choices will depend on budget trade-offs to be resolved during design development.
What’s next: Design development continues through September with more decisions to be made about mezzanine extent, scoreboards and ancillary spaces. Presenters said they will continue to meet with the district design committee and user groups.
Ending: District leaders and the architect said they will return with updated plans as design development moves toward construction documents and bidding next year.
