In some portfolio decision problems it is not possible or interesting to constrain portfolios with a monetary budget. Instead it might be of interest to investigate how disagreement among a group of decision makers or stakeholders can be used as a constraint, and how this affects the portfolio composition. In this paper we present complementary decision evaluation methods for group portfolio decision analysis in situations where the stakeholders have conflicting preferences. The approach supports the analysis of a portfolio of planned actions in urban planning when a large group of stakeholders have inconsistent opinions with respect to the performance of each action. The group of stakeholders is, for each criterion, partitioned into two disagreeing groups based upon their views on the actions' performance. The distance between these two groups is then measured. An action's aggregated disagreement taking into account all criteria is then used as the action's associated resource constraint, and portfolios can be generated by solving a sequence of Knapsack problems. The robustness of the portfolios can be further evaluated with an a priori sensitivity analysis. The suggested approach supports decision makers by elucidating how the portfolio composition changes when the actions' aggregated disagreement increases.