I talked to a tall and strong man like you.
I talked to a man tall and strong like you.
I talked to a tall and strong man, like you.
I talked to a man tall and strong, like you.
What is the difference in the meanings?
a. The man was tall and strong, and he was also like you (in other ways as well as being tall and strong)
b. The man was like you in that he was tall and strong
There is also the possibility that 'like you' means 'like you did'. I am setting that aside
I talked to a tall and strong man like you.
This sounds a little bit awkward, and could mean that the speaker talked to a man similar to the listener. Since the speaker notes that the man is tall and strong, it is implied that the listener is also tall and strong, but could potentially have other qualities in common with the man. (As you noted, like can mean a few things. I understand that you are using it here to mean "similar to")
This would be said more naturally as:
I talked to a tall, strong man like you.
I talked to a man tall and strong like you.
This is also a bit awkward sounding. This means that the speaker talked to a man who is tall and strong similarly to how the listener is tall and strong. It is more specific. It doesn't say anything about whether the listener and the man have anything else in common or are even generally similar, just that they have similar height and strength.
This could be said more naturally as:
I talked to a man who is tall and strong like you.
Adding a comma is not required in either of these and does not change the meaning. However, when speaking, number 1 would naturally have a pause before the like you.
The post-position of coordinated adjectives can be an oral storytelling feature, and for that reason it can sound archaic:
They came to a dale deep and wooded.
But it occurs often enough in everyday descriptions as in your example, where those modifiers are followed by "like you". And in such cases it is not the same construction as the oral storytelling one; rather it is a case of ellipsis.
Policeman1: Can you describe the man who fled the scene?
Witness1: He was a middle-aged man, short and paunchy like yourself.
Wintess2: No, he was a young man, tall and broad-shouldered like your partner.
Policeman2: Are we talking about the same man?
Policeman1: What was he wearing?
Witness1: He was wearing a raincoat, tan and knee-length, like yours.
Witness2: No, he was wearing a track suit, dark blue and tight-fitting, like your partner's.
This suggests that the speaker considers the listener to be a tall and strong man, similar to the one the speaker talked to. It is left unclear whether the speaker considers the listener to be otherwise similar to the man they talked to.
This is missing a comma after "man" for the intended reading, and is similar to the first version, except that it no longer implies that the listener is a man. The speaker considers the listener to be tall and strong, but not necessarily a man.
By adding the comma, you change what "like you" applies to - another way to write it would be "Like you, I talked to a tall and strong man", which makes it clearer that the speaker thinks the listener talked to a tall and strong man.
This has the same problem as the second sentence, that you need a comma after "man". If you add that comma in, then it may be unclear to a reader (but tone would give away meaning to someone listening) as to whether they think the listener is a tall and strong man, or just tall and strong.
If you want it to mean "The man was tall and strong, and he was also like you (in other ways as well as being tall and strong)", then you would say it as "I talked to a man like you; he was tall and strong" - this captures that tall and strong are two details shared between the man and the listener.
