I don't see there being a solution at all; hotels are zoned differently than residential for a reason.
The fact that AirBNB managed to popularize "breaking zoning laws ON THE WEB" doesn't mean that the zoning laws need to change.
I think the bigger issue is if the externalities imposed by normal usage are so high that, when properly internalized, AirBNB no longer presents a compelling value proposition in the majority of cases. This is certainly possible.
From AirBNB's perspective, perhaps they just fight the internalization as hard as possible. There are businesses with much costlier externalities, such as energy companies, that are actually subsidized and not taxed. In the AirBNB case, however, they may have a tougher fight as the harm, while lower in aggregate, is also less diffuse.
Sounds a lot like Bitcoin and some other tech stuff. Where the conceit is that is doesn't have all of the externalities, until it's realized that they are functional and useful.
It seems to me there are reasonable community reasons to have constraints and there are reasonable reasons to allow owners and travelers to benefit by coming to terms. It seems to me then there are reasonable reasons to figure out sensible guidelines - even where no rules (or practically none) are in place today. Then laws and regulations (and building rules) can be changed to adapt to these new opportunities and risks.
AirBnB (understandably) wants more latitude than I think they should be given. But I also think it is an opportunity for benefit to society and I don't think just saying there are risks we shouldn't adapt is a great idea.