Forgive the use of general language, but I will try to articulate this as I have to others, at the cost of not being super precise. To me, the question is meaningless because there are contradictory premises.
In your question: "Can an Omnipotent Being create something so heavy that He can't lift it?" There is an assertion that an omnipotent being can do anything, but also that there is something an omnipotent being can't do. Then the resolution is that clearly the omnipotent being can't do everything.
I would argue that since your question contradicts itself, that the omnipotent being either can do anything or cannot - and therefore the question can't be answered, as posed.
It's like the question: "What happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object?" The question can't be answered because it contradicts itself. First it says that there exists a force that can't be stopped, and then it says there is something that can stop any force. The existence of one, implies that the other does not exist, therefore logically, neither can exist in the same universe so the question can't be answered.
Just like in your question, if an omnipotent being exists, it can't exist in the same universe as something "that an omnipotent being can't do." The existence of one, implies that the other does not exist, which means that neither can exist in the same universe. But you can't necessarily conclude whether being omnipotent is "consistent," based only on the information given.
My answer does not include the possibility that an omnipotent being can "bend the rules of logic" and then make it so that even though there is a contradiction, it will make it so that it isn't one; but that line of thought isn't as interesting to me as this one is.