I don't see that as an issue. It will get cached and it's the same difference as having a medium sized, well compressed image. Almost inconsequential when you consider you'll never have to write any more lines of CSS.
Don't get so hung up on the size of the CSS when it's relatively tiny compared to images.
> Don't get so hung up on the size of the CSS when it's relatively tiny compared to images.
It's an issue when you have to make the user wait for the top of the page to render (so they might leave if it takes too long to see anything), especially on mobile on a slow connection.
That's why APM for example makes you inline the CSS at the top of the HTML file and won't allow more than 75KB of uncompressed CSS.
CSS might be smaller than most images but it's critical to the initial page experience whereas image loading can be delayed.
Don't get so hung up on the size of the CSS when it's relatively tiny compared to images.