IANAL; I am not your lawyer. If you want specific legal advice, retain a lawyer.
In general, non-compete clauses in employment contracts need four things (Arizona source: https://www.allenlawaz.com/non-competes-legal-arizona/):
1) They need to be reasonable in their terms
2) They need to be limited geographically
3) They need to be limited temporally
4) They need to be limited to "legitimate business interests".
The contract described is limited both temporally and geographically (to two years and 25 miles, respectively).
These limitations seem very reasonable to me (noting that a) I am not a lawyer, and b) I am from California, specifically Southern California, land of the freeway, and I commute 15-20 miles each way by choice, and it takes me about half an hour, which is mostly due to traffic, rather than distance), and likely to pass muster on those grounds. Note that I've looked up several "sample non-compete clauses" online to answer questions and two years duration is commonplace. It seems to be viewed as "not long enough to seriously affect one's career, but long enough that you won't immediately set up or join an adjacent competitor", which seems to be the point.
Now, the last question is whether this non-compete serves a "legitimate business interest". You mentioned in the question that your work is primarily website design, which is something that can go in either direction, based on the nature of your work and the nature of you employer's business and offerings. If your work is internal (e.g. you work on your own company's website) and your employer's business products and/or services are unrelated to offering websites (e.g. they are a car dealership) then you are more likely to prevail. If your work is external, e.g. your company is in hosting or PR and they provide web design as a product or service, the less likely you are to prevail and the more likely the contract is to be upheld.
Which category you are in is a question of fact for the finder of fact (judge or jury) to determine.
EDIT: Based on your response to my comment query, it seems likely to be upheld, as you would (potentially be) a direct competitor.